Teaching Language Online

Practical and accessible, this book comprehensively covers everything you

need to know to design, develop, and deliver successful online, blended, and
flipped language courses. Grounded in the principles of instructional design and
communicative language teaching, this book serves as a compendium of best
practices, research, and strategies for creating learner-centered online language
instruction that builds students’ proficiency within meaningful cultural contexts.
This book addresses important topics such as finding and optimizing online
resources and materials, learner engagement, teacher and student satisfaction and
connectedness, professional development, and online language assessment.
Teaching Language Online features:

●● A step-by-step guide aligned with the American Council on the Teaching

of Foreign Languages (ACTFL), the Common European Framework of
Reference (CEFR) for Languages: Learning,Teaching and Assessment, and
the World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA) standards
●● Research-based best practices and tools to implement effective communi-
cative language teaching (CLT) online
●● Strategies and practices that apply equally to world languages and ESL/
EFL contexts
●● Key takeaway summaries, discussion questions, and suggestions for further
reading in every chapter
●● Free, downloadable eResources with further readings and more materials
available at www.routledge.com/9781138387003
As the demand for language courses in online or blended formats grows,
K-16 instructors urgently need resources to effectively transition their teach-
ing online. Designed to help world language instructors, professors, and K-12
language educators regardless of their level of experience with online learning,
this book walks through the steps to move from the traditional classroom
format to effective, successful online teaching environments.

Victoria Russell is Professor of Spanish and Foreign Language Education

and Coordinator of Online Programs in the Department of Modern and
Classical Languages at Valdosta State University, USA.

Kathryn Murphy-Judy is Associate Professor of French and Coordinator

of Languages in the School of World Studies at Virginia Commonwealth
University (VCU), USA. She also directs the Liberal Studies for Early and
Elementary Education Program in the VCU College of Humanities and
Sciences.
Teaching
Language Online
A Guide for Designing,
Developing, and Delivering
Online, Blended, and
Flipped Language Courses
VICTORIA RUSSELL AND KATHRYN MURPHY-JUDY
First published 2021
by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2021 Taylor & Francis
The right of Victoria Russell and Kathryn Murphy-Judy to be identified as authors
of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised
in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or
hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks,
and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Russell,Victoria, author. | Murphy-Judy,
Kathryn, author.
Title: Teaching language online : A guide for designing, developing, and
delivering online, blended, and flipped language courses / Victoria
Russell and Kathryn Murphy-Judy.
Description: New York : Routledge, 2020. | Includes bibliographical
references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2020010729 (print) | LCCN 2020010730 (ebook) | ISBN
9781138386983 (hardback) | ISBN 9781138387003 (paperback) | ISBN
9780429426483 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Language and languages--Computer-assisted instruction. |
Language and languages--Study and teaching--Computer network resources.
Classification: LCC P53.28 .R87 2020 (print) | LCC P53.28 (ebook) | DDC
418.0071--dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020010729
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020010730

ISBN: 9781138386983 (hbk)

ISBN: 9781138387003 (pbk)
ISBN: 9780429426483 (ebk)

Typeset in Bembo and Gill Sans

by Cenveo® Publisher Services
Visit the eResources: www.routledge.com/9781138387003
This book is dedicated to our families and friends who have
supported us throughout this project and to our colleagues
in the ACTFL Distance Learning SIG, CALICO, the NFLRC,
CARLA, CASLS, and COERLL, among so many others,
and of course, to our online students, without whom none
of this would be possible.

v
Brief Contents
List of Figures xiv
List of Tables xvi
eResources xvii
Author Biographies xxxix

Introduction 1

1. What Are the Basics of Online Course Design? 9

2. What Are the Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching? 75

3. What Is Special about Teaching Language Online? 131

4. Online Professional Development: What Resources

Are Available and Who Can Help? 184

5. A Review of Relevant Research on Online Language Teaching:

What Works and Why? 212

Conclusion 268

Index 276

vii
Contents
List of Figures xiv
List of Tables xvi
eResources xvii
Author Biographies xxxix

Introduction 1
References 8

1. What Are the Basics of Online Course Design? 9

Introduction 9
The ADDIE Model 10
Analysis 13
Context Analysis 15
Technology and Media Analysis 23
Learner Analysis 25
Content Analysis 28
Instructional Staffing Analysis 30
Evaluation of the Analysis Phase 31
Design 32
Learning Platform for Course Delivery 33
Google’s Open Online Education 35
Mobile Platforms 35
Design Issues Specific to Languages 37

viii
 Contents  ix

Backward Design 41
Synchronous v. Asynchronous Models of Delivery 43
The Getting Started Module 44
Teaching, Social, and Cognitive Presences 46
Teaching presence 47
Social Presence 50
Cognitive Presence 51
Designing for Assessment of Student Learning 52
Designing for Accessibility, Usability, and Inclusivity 58
Alpha and Beta Testing 61
Evaluating the Design 62
Checklist 65
Conclusion 65
Key Takeaways 65
Discussion Questions 66
Suggestions for Further Reading 66
References 67
2. What Are the Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching? 75
Introduction 75
Developing the Learner 76
Developing the Learning Management System (LMS) Interface 78
Readability and Usability 78
Common LMSs 80
Mobile Learning 84
Developing the Course Structure 84
Basic Course Information 85
Learner Orientation 87
Modules and Pacing 89
The Course Calendar 91
Developing Interaction and Course Activities 94
The Three Types of Interaction 95
Learner-Instructor Interaction 95
Learner-Learner Interaction 101
Learner-Content Interaction 104
Online Course Development Tools and Resources 109
Interaction Tools 110
Video, Multimedia, and Interactive Media Tools 110
Textbook Platforms 114
x Contents

Media Companies, National Governments, Libraries, and Museums 115

In-House Content Creation 115
Assessment and Assessment Tools 116
Resources and Ancillaries 119
Other Tools 121
Conclusion 123
Key Takeaways 123
Checklist 124
Discussion Questions 124
Suggestions for Further Reading 125
References 125

3. What Is Special about Teaching Language Online? 131

Introduction 131
Teaching in Online and Blended Environments 132
Teaching Language in Flipped Learning Environments 134
The Components of Communicative Competence 135
Pragmatics-Focused Instruction 137
The Communicative Language Teaching Approach (CLT) 140
Core Practices for Language Instruction 141
CLT in Online, Blended, and Flipped Learning
Environments 143
The Notional/Functional Syllabus 144
Rich Comprehensible Online Input 145
Lesson Design and Learner Proficiency Level 150
Professional Standards 151
Proficiency Guidelines and Testing 152
Language Learning Goals 155
Lesson Design and the Three Modes of Communication 158
Pitfalls of Mechanical Drills 158
Communicative Online Activities 161
Authentic Materials 167
Creating a Meaningful Cultural Context 169
Holistic Grading and Corrective Feedback 171
Conclusion 175
Key Takeaways 175
Discussion Questions 176
Suggestions for Further Reading 177
References 178
 Contents  xi

4. Online Professional Development: What Resources

Are Available and Who Can Help? 184
Introduction 184
Online Mentoring Program for Language Teachers 185
National Foreign Language Resource Center (NFLRC)
Resources 187
Online Professional Development 189
Project-Based Language Learning (PBLL) 190
Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition
(CARLA) Resources 192
Content-Based Language Teaching
with Technology (CoBaLTT) 193
Technology and Second Language Learning 194
Language Teacher Education 196
The Center for Open Educational Resources and Language
Learning (COERLL) Resources 197
Language Learning Materials 198
Teaching Methods 199
Open Education 200
STARTALK Summer Programs 201
Online STARTALK Programs for Teachers 202
Basic Online Language Design and Delivery (BOLDD)
Collaboratory 202
BOLDD Workshops 203
Professional Development Organizations for Online
Language Teachers 203
ACTFL Distance Learning (DL) Special Interest
Group (SIG) 203
Computer-Assisted Language Instruction
Consortium (CALICO) 204
European Association of Computer-Assisted Language
Learning (EUROCALL) 205
International Association for Language Learning
Technology (IALLT) 206
Non-Discipline-Specific Resources 206
EDUCAUSE 206
The Online Learning Consortium (OLC) 206
Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning
and Online Teaching (MERLOT) 207
xii Contents

Conclusion 207
Key Takeaways 208
Discussion Questions 208
Suggestions for Further Reading 209
References 210

5. A Review of Relevant Research on Online Language Teaching:

What Works and Why? 212
Introduction 212
Research on Online Teacher and Learner Satisfaction 213
Factors That Affect Teacher and Learner Satisfaction 215
Research on Online Class Size 217
Recommendations from Professional Organizations on Class Size 218
Research on Online Language Learner Anxiety 219
Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) 219
Research Using the FLCAS with Online Language Learners 219
Research on Best Practices for Online Language Teaching 222
Research on Best Practices in Online Language
Teaching Contexts 223
Research on Best Practices in Online Teaching
Across Disciplines 226
Research on Teaching, Social, and Cognitive Presence 239
Indicators of Social Presence 240
Research Findings on Social Presence 240
Research on Learner Connectedness 243
Evaluating Learner Connectedness 244
Research on Assessment in Online Language Education 247
Performance-Based Assessments 248
The Integrated Performance Assessment (IPA) 252
Conclusion 256
Key Takeaways 257
Discussion Questions 257
Suggestions for Further Reading 258
References 259

Conclusion 268
Introduction 268
Future Directions 270
What Is the Future of Online Language Teaching? 270
 Contents  xiii

How Will Technology Impact Online Language

Teaching in the Future? 272
Concluding Remarks 273
References 274

Index 276
List of Figures
1.1 An ADDIE model for online language design, development,
and delivery 11
1.2 5-year historical LMS breakdown by region as
percentage of total 34
1.3 Flowchart for developing an IPA 39
1.4 The backward design process 41
1.5 The new Bloom’s Taxonomy 42
1.6 Backward design of a thematic unit 43
1.7 Screenshot of a getting started module for online Spanish
on D2L’s Brightspace platform 45
1.8 Screenshot with callouts as activity instructions for
a blended course 47
1.9 The University of Texas avatar, Tex, the armadillo 48
1.10 Cartoon showing the need for differentiated testing 54
1.11 Interpersonal task with assessment rubric 56
1.12 The roadmap of e-QADeSHE project 64
2.1 Screenshot of a standard Blackboard control panel and launch
page for developing a course 81
2.2 Screenshot of a Blackboard Web 2.0 “Focus on
Communication” format 82
2.3 Screenshot of a Blackboard launch page for a
novice-level online French course 83
2.4 CASLS LinguaFolio planning guide template 93

xiv
 List of Figures  xv

2.5 Bury’s (2014) community of inquiry model 95

2.6 A humanizing avatar 96
2.7 Pacansky-Brock’s (2015) tips for humanizing
an online class 97
2.8 Screenshot of an imaginary student LFO proficiency
overview 99
2.9 Bloom’s digital taxonomy for the web 109
2.10 Screenshot of an H5P embedded comprehension check 117
2.11 Screenshot of the BonPatron site 120
3.1 Competencies for effective online language
teaching 133
3.2 LangMedia, food shopping in Mexico 138
3.3 Excerpt from transcript of “Buying food at a small
supermarket” from LangMedia (shopping for
food in Mexico) with the English translation 139
3.4 MERLOT resource for teaching French civilization 145
3.5 Screenshot of a captioned instructional video
using the Blackboard Collaborate tool on D2L’s
Brightspace platform 148
3.6 Recording features of Screencast-O-Matic 150
3.7 Video editing features of Screencast-O-Matic 151
3.8 Screenshot of Yabla’s home page 163
3.9 Overview of the capabilities of Photo Story 3 164
3.10 Using VoiceThread to stimulate presentational speaking 165
3.11 Today’s front pages from the Newseum website 168
4.1 Screenshot of NFLRC’s Online Language Pedagogy
landing page 190
4.2 Screenshot of NFLRC’s Project-Based Language
Learning landing page 192
4.3 CARLA’s Transitioning to Teaching Language
Online program 197
4.4 Screenshot of COERLL’s main page 198
5.1 Content frame for an eight-week Spanish course 235
5.2 Introduction to a module in an online Spanish course
on D2L’s Brightspace platform 235
List of Tables
1.1 Selected Google products for online language environments 36
1.2 Table comparing proficiency levels in CEFR, ILR,
and ACTFL scales 53
2.1 Day by day module planning 94
2.2 Interaction types and modes with examples 107
2.3 Interaction modes 109
3.1 Ten guidelines for teaching communicatively in online,
blended, and flipped language learning environments 143
4.1 NFLRC projects for online and blended learning 188
4.2 Description of CARLA’s research and programs 193
4.3 The six essential parts of a webquest activity 195
4.4 Overview of COERLL’s resources for language pedagogy 199
5.1 Don’s (2005) characteristics of effective online language courses 223
5.2 Best practices for eLearning: Boettcher and Conrad’s 10 plus 4 227
5.3 FSI’s language leaning timelines 237
5.4 Bolliger & Inan’s (2012) Online Student Connectedness
Survey (OSCS) 245

xvi
eResources
We have included with this book many references to organizations, pro-
grams, and websites that provide supplemental support and useful resources
for effective online language teaching, from inception to implementation. We
have gathered the links to these helpful resources in a single place, accessible
on the book’s product page. Whenever a site is available as an eResource, the
eResource logo will appear next to where it is mentioned in the text.
You can access these links by visiting the book product page on our web-
site: www.routledge.com/9781138387003. Click on the tab that says “Support
Material,” and select the document. The document with links is organized by
chapter.

Chapter 1 Links
Learning Management Systems (LMS):
A list of over 400 Learning Management Systems and distance learning plat-
forms can be found here with a filter for mobile or desktop deployment:
https://elearningindustry.com/directory/software-categories/learning-
management-systems

Specific Providers:
Blackboard: https://www.blackboard.com/ (institutional Blackboard sites will
have their own address)

xvii
xviii eResources

The open Blackboard LMS: https://www.blackboard.com/blackboard-open-

lms.
Canvas: https://www.instructure.com/canvas/ (Note the mother company is
called Instructure)
CourseSites (part of the Blackboard brand): https://coursesites.com/
D2L Brightspace: https://www.d2l.com/products/ (institutional D2L sites
will have their own address)
Edmodo: https://new.edmodo.com/
Google Classroom: https://edu.google.com/products/classroom/
Course Builder: https://edu.google.com/openonline/course-builder/index.html
G Suite for Education: https://edu.google.com/products/gsuite-for-education
Google Course Kit: https://edu.google.com/assignments/ (an add-on for
assignments)
Moodle: https://moodle.com/
Sakai: https://www.sakailms.org/ (institutional Sakai sites will have their own
address)
Schoology: https://www.schoology.com/ (for K12)

MOOC Platforms:
The LangMOOC report on language MOOCs in Europe: https://www
.langmooc.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/REPORT-LangMOOCs-
O2-_V3.pdf
A list of MOOCs: https://www.mooc-list.com/initiatives-and-categories

MOOC Aggregators:
Class central: https://www.class-central.com/
EMMA: http://platform.europeanmoocs.eu/
Federica/EMMA ITALY: http://www.federica.eu/mooc
MOOCs.co: http://www.moocs.co/
My education path: http://myeducationpath.com/courses/
OERU: http://oeru.org/how-it-works/
OpenCourseWare Consortium: http://www.ocwconsortium.org/courses
OpenupEd: http://www.openuped.eu/

Specific MOOC Providers of Language or Language Related Courses

Alison IRELAND: https://www.alison.com
Canvas: https://www.canvas.net/?query=foreign%20languages
Class-central: https://www.class-central.com/subject/foreign-language
 eResources  xix

Coursera: https://www.coursera.org/browse/language-learning/other-languages
COURSEsites Open Education Platform USA: https://www.coursesites.com/
Education Portal=Study.com USA: https://study.com/academy/subj/foreign-
language.html
ED-X: https://www.edx.org/learn/language
FUN Mooc: https://www.fun-mooc.fr/
Future learn (Open University): https://www.futurelearn.com/subjects/language-
courses
FutureLearn UK: https://www.futurelearn.com/subjects/language-courses
Iversity GERMANY: https://iversity.org/
Miriada X: https://miriadax.net/home (offers Latin, Spanish, English, Portuguese)
The Mixxer USA: http://www.language-exchanges.org/node/106803
MOOC.org: https://www.edx.org/course/?subject=Language
Of Course: https://www.ofcourse.co.uk/category/languages
OpenClassrooms: https://openclassrooms.com/ (offers technical and profes-
sional learning in English, French, and Spanish)
Open EdX—Lagunita USA: https://www.edx.org/course/subject/language
Open Initiative (OLI) Learning US: https://oli.cmu.edu/product-category/
language/
Open2Study/class central AUSTRALIA: https://www.open.edu.au/online-
courses/subjects?keyword=languages
Saylor.org USA: http://www.saylor.org/
Shayam in India: https://swayam.gov.in/
TandemMOOC SPAIN: http://mooc.speakapps.org
Udemy.com USA: https://www.udemy.com
Xuetangx in China: https://next.xuetangx.com/

Standards, Protocols, Checklists for Quality

Online Courses and Modules:
University of Geneva instructional design methods: http://edutechwiki.unige
.ch/en/Instructional_design_method
California State University, Chico—Rubric for Online Instruction: http://
www.csun.edu/sites/default/files/QOLT_Flyer.pdf
COIL Checklist for Online Interactive Learning: http://www.westga.edu/∼
distance/ojdla/summer72/tobin72.html
Connect Thinking Checklist: https://connectthinking.com.au/wp-content/
uploads/2018/01/ELearning_quality_checklist_ConnectThinking2013.pdf
xx eResources

Going Hybrid: A How-To Manual (University of Colorado, Boulder): https://

tinyurl.com/goinghybridatcu
Illinois Online (click the Instructional Design arrow for the full list): http://
www.ion.uillinois.edu/initiatives/qoci/webrubric/webexample.asp
iNACOL (now called the Aurora Institute): https://aurora-institute.org/wp-
content/uploads/national-standards-for-quality-online-courses-v2.pdf
Minnesota State University: https://www.mnstate.edu/uploadedFiles/Level_2/
Content/Instructional_Technology_Services/Teaching-Learning/Online
CourseDesignChecklist.pdf
MOILLE: Table 5. MOILLE based Questionnaire: https://www.langmooc
.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/REPORT-LangMOOCs-O2-_V3.pdf
Quality Matters: https://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/
StandardsfromtheQMHigherEducationRubric.pdf
SREB (a checklist for evaluating online courses): http://publications.sreb.org/
2006/06T06_Checklist_for_Evaluating-Online-Courses.pdf
University of Hawai‘i , Mānoa, Center for Language and Technology—Quality
Guidelines: http://clt.manoa.hawaii.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/
QualityGuidelines20131217.pdf
Mixed QM & UDL standards checklist: https://cpb-us-west-2-juc1ugur1
qwqqqo4.stackpathdns.com/wp.towson.edu/dist/0/521/files/2018/03/
UDLQMChecklist-13dmvza.pdf
Survey of several online learning delivery systems (MOOCS, Podcasts, Online
courses, etc.): https://tech.ed.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Section-5-
Online-Professional-Learning-Quality-Checklist-FINAL.pdf

Regulatory Bodies for Online Educational Delivery:

C-RAC—Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions (handbook): https://
www2.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/accreditation-handbook.pdf
NC-SARA—National Council for State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements.
Student questionnaire: https://www.nc-sara.org/student-questions
Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education offers its Online Course
Exchange at: https://www.wiche.edu/ice/about/stakeholders/administrators

Creation Tools and Add-Ons:

List of 10 platforms with descriptions: https://www.techradar.com/news/
best-online-learning-platform
 eResources  xxi

Atomic Curriculum Tools add-on for Canvas LMS: https://products.ato

micjolt.com/atomic-apps-canvas/atomic-curriculum-tools/
DesignPLUS product from CIDI Labs: https://cidilabs.com/landing/design-
tools/
eLearning Industry: https://elearningindustry.com/directory/software-catego
ries/learning-management-systems
Google Open Online: https://edu.google.com/openonline/
LearnDash: https://www.learndash.com/
Ted-Ed: https://ed.ted.com/videos

Accessibility, Usability, Inclusivity, and UDL:

Accessibility Tool Kit: https://assets.techsmith.com/docs/Accessibility-
Assessment-Toolkit.pdf
ADA Compliance for online courses from EDUCAUSE: https://www
.washington.edu/doit/20-tips-teaching-accessible-online-course
Blackboard Ally: https://www.blackboard.com/teaching-learning/accessibility-
universal-design/blackboard-ally-lms
CIDI Labs DesignPLUS: https://cidilabs.com/landing/design-tools/
Universal Design for Learning Guidelines: http://udlguidelines.cast.org
University of Washington tips for accessibility: https://www.washington.edu/
doit/20-tips-teaching-accessible-online-course
WCAG web content accessibility: https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guid
elines/wcag/
WCAG 2.1 quick reference guide here: https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCA
G21/quickref/

Proctoring:
Examity: https://examity.com
Honorlock: https://honorlock.com
Pearson Vue: https://home.pearsonvue.com
ProctorU: https://www.proctoru.com includes ProctorU Auto
Proctorio: https://proctorio.com

Major Institutional Online Language Programs:

Arizona State University “Ocourses”: https://go.asuonline.asu.edu/
Arizona State University on-campus major with some online courses: https://
asuonline.asu.edu/online-degree-programs/
xxii eResources

Athabasca University (Canada) for English, French, and Spanish programs and
courses: https://www.athabascau.ca/course/course-listings.php?/undergraduate/
humanities/all
California University of Pennsylvania program in Arabic: https://www.calu
.edu/academics/undergraduate/bachelors/arabic-language-and-culture/
index.aspx
Carnegie Mellon University’s Open Learning Initiative: https://oli.cmu.edu/
Languages: https://oli.cmu.edu/product-category/language/
The Open University, online language program and courses: http://www
.openuniversity.edu/iswcourses/programmes/subjects/language-degrees
Oregon State University with programs in French, German, & Spanish and
minors that include Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Italian and ASL: https://
ecampus.oregonstate.edu/online-degrees/undergraduate/foreign-languages/
University of Maryland University College online language programs and courses:
https://www.umgc.edu/academic-programs/liberal-arts-and-communications/
foreign-languages.cfm
Valdosta State University, French and Spanish with two tracks each: https://
www.valdosta.edu/programs/a/humanities-and-communication-studies/
William Woods University program in American Sign Language: https://
www.williamwoods.edu/academics/online/transfer/asl_degree.html

Online K-12 Schools in the United States:

ACCESS Distance Learning (Alabama): https://accessdl.state.al.us/
Virtual Arkansas: https://virtualarkansas.org/
Florida Virtual School (FLVS): https://www.flvs.net/
Georgia Virtual School (GAVS) : https://gavirtualschool.org/
Kentucky Virtual Campus for K-12: http://www.kyvc4k12.org/
Louisiana Course Choice: http://www.louisianacoursechoice.net/
Maryland Virtual Learning Opportunities Program: https://sites.google.com/
site/mdvirtuallearningopportunities/
Mississippi Virtual Public School (MVPS): https://www.connectionsacademy
.com/mississippi-school
North Carolina Virtual Public School (NCVPS): http://www.ncvps.org/
South Carolina Virtual School Program (SCVSP): https://virtualsc.org/
Texas Virtual School Network (TxVSN): https://www.txvsn.org/
Virtual Virginia: https://www.virtualvirginia.org/
West Virginia Virtual School (WVVS): http://wvde.state.wv.us/vschool/
 eResources  xxiii

Resources for Training On Tools, Apps,

and Software (for Students and Instructors):
General:
Hoonuit (formerly Atomic Learning and Versifit Technologies): https://
hoonuit.com/atomic-learning-versifit-technologies-are-now-hoonuit/
LinkedIn Learning (formerly Lynda.com): https://www.lynda.com/subject/all

For Various Apps and Online Services:

Boomalang: https://www.boomalang.co/blog/my-boomalang-experience-from-
a-nervous-student-to-a-confident-speaker-guest
Extempore: https://extemporeapp.com/extempore-user-guides-and-instructional-
videos/
FlipGrid: https://static.flipgrid.com/docs/Flipgrid_foreign_language.pdf
GoReact: https://help.goreact.com/hc/en-us/articles/360003174051
Padlet: https://jn.padlet.com/category/6-posting (post of what online stu-
dents do)
TalkAbroad: https://support.talkabroad.com/article/6-student-instruction-
manual
VoiceThread: https://rutgers.instructure.com/courses/35/pages/voicethread?
module_item_id=4877 (a nicely illustrated how-to from Rutgers University)
Zoom: https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/201362193-Joining-a-
Meeting

Other Sites and Utilities Mentioned:

CARLA Programs and Research on Assessment: https://carla.umn.edu/assess
ment/vac/CreateUnit/p_1.html
ACTFL Performance Descriptors for Language Learners: https://cms.azed
.gov/home/GetDocumentFile?id=5748a47daadebe04c0b66e64
CASLS Guide to LinguaFolio Online: https://lfonetwork.uoregon.edu/wp-
content/uploads/sites/5/2019/01/Teacher-Welcome-Packet-4.zip

Chapter 2 Links
Basic Tools for Online Course Design, Development, and Delivery:
Kent State University: https://www.kent.edu/onlineteaching/resources
Yale University:https://cls.yale.edu/faculty/resources/online-teaching-tools-and-
resources
xxiv eResources

Valdosta State University: https://www.valdosta.edu/celt/resources.php

Virginia Commonwealth University: https://ctle.vcu.edu/resources/teaching-
guides/
7 Tips to create effective visual communication for elearning: https://www
.flearningstudio.com/effective-visual-communication-in-elearning/
The TED-Ed simple platform for creating and sharing online lessons: https://
ed.ted.com
Course development checklist from Minnesota State University: https://www
.mnstate.edu/uploadedFiles/Level_2/Content/Instructional_Technology_
Services/Teaching-Learning/OnlineCourseDesignChecklist.pdf

Approaches:
CASLS Blended unit planner: https://lfonetwork.uoregon.edu/wp-content/
uploads/sites/5/2015/09/Blended-unit-planner-final-1.0.pdf
Digital Storytelling (see more in Chapter 3): https://www.emergingedtech
.com/2017/04/digital-storytelling-for-the-language-learning classroom/ and
https://www.scribd.com/doc/79101242/10-Digital-Storytelling-Projects
Project Based Language Learning: http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/projects/view/2014A/
Question Formulation Technique: https://rightquestion.org/what-is-the-qft/
Webquests: http://zunal.com/process.php?w=21401

Finding Resources and Authentic Materials:

Museums, Libraries, Archives for Locating Authentic Materials and Ready-Made
Lessons:
Bibliothèque Nationale: https://www.bnf.fr/fr
Google Arts & Culture: https://artsandculture.google.com/
J. Paul Getty Museum: https://www.getty.edu/education/teachers/classroom_
resources/
Le Louvre: https://www.louvre.fr/en/visites-en-ligne
National Gallery of Art: https://www.nga.gov/education/learningresources.html
Ohio State University Spanish Dialects Archive: http://dialectos.osu.edu
Rijks Museum: https://artsandculture.google.com/partner/rijksmuseum
San Francisco Museum of Art: https://www.sfmoma.org/teacher-resources/
Uffizi Gallery: https://artsandculture.google.com/partner/uffizi-gallery
VMFA: http://vmfa-resources.org/
Media Outlets with Language Learning Facilities:
Asia Society (https://asiasociety.org/): https://asiasociety.org/china-learning-
initiatives/teq-instructional-videos-chinese-language-teaching
 eResources  xxv

BBC language education:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/languages/french/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/languages/german/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/languages/spanish/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/languages/chinese/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/languages/italian/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/languages/portuguese/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/languages/greek/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/languages/polish/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/languages/other/quickfix/arabic.shtml
32 other LCTLs: http://www.bbc.co.uk/languages/other/quickfix/
Canadian government site: https://www.noslangues-ourlanguages.gc.ca/
en/index
Deutsche Welle:
French lessons:
https://www.dw.com/en/learn-german/mission-paris-episodes/s-9836
German lessons:
https://www.dw.com/en/learn-german/s-2469
https://twitter.com/dw_learngerman
https://www.dw.com/en/learn-german/deutsch-interaktiv/s-9572
https://www.dw.com/en/learn-german/mission-europe/s-9831
Language Portal of Canada: http://www.noslangues-ourlanguages.gc.ca/
Radio France Internationale (RFI): https://savoirs.rfi.fr/en/apprendre-enseigner
TED talks (in target languages and/or with TL transcripts): https://www
.ted.com/
TV5 (France): https://langue-francaise.tv5monde.com/decouvrir

Screencapturing and Screencasting:

Adobe Captivate: https://www.adobe.com/products/captivate.html
Camtasia: https://www.techsmith.com/video-editor.html
Grab (Apple): pre-OS Catalina https://support.apple.com/guide/grab/
welcome/mac
Jing: https://www.techsmith.com/jing-tool.html
QuickTime: support.apple.com › quicktime
Screencast-o-matic: https://screencast-o-matic.com
Screenshot (Apple): (OS Catalina 10.15+) https://support.apple.com/en-us/
HT201361
SnagIt: https://www.techsmith.com/screen-capture.html
Windows (simple screenshot): Ctrl + Print Screen (Print Scrn)
xxvi eResources

Tools for Interaction:

Various tools: https://designingoutcomes.com/assets/PadWheelV4/PadWheel_
Poster_V4.pdf
Google Forms plus Flubaroo: http://www.flubaroo.com/hc/quizzes-in-
google-forms
Hot Potatoes: https://hotpot.uvic.ca/
H5P: https://h5p.org/
Jane Hart’s Center for Learning & Performance: http://c4lpt.co.uk/
Mentimeter: https://www.mentimeter.com/
NearPod: https://nearpod.com/
NFLRC PLN: https://clt.manoa.hawaii.edu/pln
SoftChalk: https://softchalk.com/
Twine: https://twinery.org/

Virtual Exchanges:
Tandem exchanges:
COIL: http://coil.suny.edu/
Class2Class: https://class2class.com/
The MiXXer: https://www.language-exchanges.org/
Soliya: https://www.soliya.net/
UniCollaboration: https://www.unicollaboration.org/
WeSpeke: https://www.linkedin.com/company/wespeke

Conversation services (paid):

Boomalang: https://www.boomalang.co/
LinguaMeeting: https://www.linguameeting.com/
Linkr Education: https://www.linkreducation.com/en/
Talk Abroad: https://talkabroad.com/

VoIP tools and services (to set up exchanges after identifying partner):
Google Meet: https://tools.google.com/dlpage/hangoutplugin
Google Voice: https://voice.google.com/u/0/calls
Skype: https://www.skype.com/en/
Viber: https://www.viber.com/
WeChat: https://www.wechat.com/en/
Whatsapp: https://www.whatsapp.com
 eResources  xxvii

Other exchange tools (phone apps, chat services, gaming):

Augmented Reality and Interactive Storytelling (ARIS): https://fielddaylab
.org/make/aris/
FlipGrid: https://info.flipgrid.com/
HelloTalk: https://www.hellotalk.com/?lang=en
Minecraft: https://www.minecraft.net/en-us/
Paris Occupé: https://sites.google.com/site/occupiedparisprofs/
Polar FLE with Inspector Roger Duflair: http://www.polarfle.com/
Second Life: https://secondlife.com/

Video Resources:
Video servers worldwide:
List of video sites like YouTube: http://l-lists.com/en/lists/r5l5dj.html
Aparat (Iranian): https://www.aparat.com/
Daily Motion: https://www.dailymotion.com/us
Globo (Brazil): https://globoplay.globo.com/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/
Internet Archive (choose by language): https://archive.org/details/movies
Iqiyi (China): https://www.iqiyi.com/
Kakao (Korean): https://tv.kakao.com/
Kanopy Film streaming services (institutional account): https://www.kanopy
.com/
Lumière project (U.C. Berkeley): https://lumiere.berkeley.edu/
Myspace: https://myspace.com/
Nico Douga (Japanese): http://www.nicovideo.jp/
Open Video Project: https://open-video.org/
RuTube (Russian): https://rutube.ru/
TeacherTube (safe videos for K-12): https://www.teachertube.com/
Veblr (Indian): https://veblr.com/
Vidivodo (Turkish): http://www.vidivodo.com/
Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/
Vkontakte (Russian video and social network): https://vk.com/
Vimeo: https://vimeo.com
YinYueTai (Chinese music videos): http://www.yinyuetai.com/
Youku (Chinese): http://www.youku.com/
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/
xxviii eResources

Video Conferencing/Virtual Classrooms:

Adobe Connect: https://www.adobe.com/products/adobeconnect.html
Blackboard Collaborate: https://www.blackboard.com/teaching-learning/colla
boration-web-conferencing/blackboard-collaborate
Google Meet: https://gsuite.google.com/products/chat/
Go-to-Meeting: https://www.gotomeeting.com/l
WebEx: https://cart.webex.com/
Zoom: https://zoom.us/

Video Production and Commentary:

Animoto: https://animoto.com/
Annotation Studio: https://www.annotationstudio.org/
Flixtime: https://www.videomaker.com/
Masher: https://www.masher.com/
WeVideo: https://www.wevideo.com/
Muvee: https://www.muvee.com/
Veo: https://www.veo.co/
Kaltura: https://videos.kaltura.com/
Panopto: https://www.panopto.com/
Camtasia: https://www.techsmith.com/video-editor.html
Video Review: https://www.techsmith.com/video-review.html
Adobe Rush (mobile): https://www.adobe.com/products/premiere-rush.
html

Other Tools for Interaction (Writing, Assessment,

and Social reading)
Writing:
Adobe Spark: https://spark.adobe.com/
ARIS (Augmented Reality and Interactive Storytelling): https://fielddaylab
.org/make/aris/

Digital storytelling:
https://www.schrockguide.net/digital-storytelling.html

Assessment:
Extempore: https://extemporeapp.com/
Go React: https://get.goreact.com/
 eResources  xxix

Kahoot: https://kahoot.com/
Mentimeter: https://www.mentimeter.com/
Poll Everywhere: https://www.polleverywhere.com/
Quizlet: https://quizlet.com/
Socrative: https://socrative.com/

Social Reading:
Annotator: http://annotatorjs.org/
Annotation Studio (MIT): https://www.annotationstudio.org/
Classroom Salon: http://www.corporatesalon.com/
eComma: https://ecomma.coerll.utexas.edu/about-ecomma/
eMargin: http://emargin.bcu.ac.uk/
Genius: https://genius.com/
Google Docs: https://www.google.com/docs/about/
Hypothes.is: https://web.hypothes.is/
Lacuna: https://www.lacunastories.com/
Marginalia: http://webmarginalia.net/
NowComment: https://nowcomment.com/
Perusall: https://perusall.com/
Ponder (browser add-on and iOS app): https://www.ponder.co/
Vialogues (video annotation): https://vialogues.com/

Chapter 3 Links
Authentic Video Resources:
This is Language (TIL): https://www.thisislanguage.com/
Yabla: https://www.yabla.com/

Can-Do Statements/Descriptors:
NCSSFL-ACTFL (2017) Can-Do Statements:
https://www.actfl.org/resources/ncssfl-actfl-can-do-statements
NCSSFL-ACTFL (2017) Intercultural Communication Novice-Distinguished
Can-Do Statements:
link:https://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/can-dos/Intercultural%20
Can-Do_Statements.pdf
NCSSFL-ACTFL (2017) Intercultural Reflection Tool: https://www.actfl.org/
sites/default/files/can-dos/Intercultural%20Can-Dos_Reflections%20Scenarios
.pdf
xxx eResources

WIDA (2016) K-12 Can Do Descriptors, Key Uses Edition: https://wida

.wisc.edu/teach/can-do/descriptors

Conversation Platforms:
En Vivo: https://www.wiley.com/college/sc/envivo/
LinguaMeeting: https://www.linguameeting.com/
Speaky: https://www.speaky.com/
TalkAbroad: www.Talkabroad.com
WeSpeke: http://en-us.wespeke.com/index.html

Digital Storytelling:
Digital storytelling examples (CARLA): https://carla.umn.edu/technology/
modules/storytelling/examples.html
How to create a digital story (CARLA): https://carla.umn.edu/technology/
modules/storytelling/create.html
Digital Storytelling preparation activities (CARLA): https://carla.umn.edu/
technology/modules/storytelling/activities.html
How to assess a digital story: https://carla.umn.edu/technology/modules/
storytelling/discussion.html
PhotoStory 3 Download: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details
.aspx?id=11132

Language Exchange Resources:

Italki: https://www.italki.com/partners
Language Exchange: https://en.language.exchange/
The Mixxer: https://www.language-exchanges.org/
14 Free Language Exchange Websites: https://www.lifewire.com/free-
language-exchange-websites-1357059

Language Learning Resources and Materials:

CARLA Materials: http://carla.umn.edu/
COERLL Materials: http://coerll.utexas.edu/coerll/materials
LangMedia: https://langmedia.fivecolleges.edu/
MERLOT: https://www.merlot.org/merlot/index.htm
Today’s Front Pages: http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/
 eResources  xxxi

Language Learning Standards, Performance

Descriptors, and Prof iciency Guidelines:
ACTFL 2012 Proficiency Guidelines: https://www.actfl.org/resources/actfl-
proficiency-guidelines-2012
ACTFL 2015 Performance Descriptors for Language Learners: https://cms.
azed.gov/home/GetDocumentFile?id=5748a47daadebe04c0b66e64
ACTFL & CAEP 2015 Program Standards for the Preparation of Foreign
Language Teachers: https://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/caep/ACTFLC
AEPStandards2013_v2015.pdf
Council of Europe Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment: https://rm.coe.int/CoERM
PublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=
0900001680459f97
National Standards Collaborative Board World-Readiness Standards for Learning
Languages (4th ed.): https://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/publications/
standards/World-ReadinessStandardsforLearningLanguages.pdf
NCSSFL-ACTFL 2017 Can Do Statements: https://www.actfl.org/resources/
ncssfl-actfl-can-do-statements
WIDA 2012 Amplification of the English Language Development Standards
Kindergarten–Grade 12: https://wida.wisc.edu/sites/default/files/resource/2012-
ELD-Standards.pdf
WIDA 2018 Performance definitions: Listening and Reading grades K–12:
https://wida.wisc.edu/sites/default/files/resource/Performance-Definitions-
Receptive-Domains.pdf
WIDA 2018 Performance definitions: Speaking and Writing grades K–12:
https://wida.wisc.edu/sites/default/files/resource/Performance-Definitions-
Expressive-Domains.pdf

Online Collaboration Tools:

Lino: http://en.linoit.com/
Padlet: https://padlet.com/
Google Docs: https://www.google.com/docs/about/

Online Rubric Makers:

Annenberg Learner (Custom): http://www.learner.org/workshops/hswriting/
interactives/rubric/
iRubric (Custom): https://www.rcampus.com/indexrubric.cfm?
RubiStar (Custom): http://rubistar.4teachers.org/index.php
xxxii eResources

Teachnology (Premade and Custom): https://www.teach-nology.com/web_

tools/rubrics/
RubricMaker (Custom): https://rubric-maker.com/

Pragmatics-Focused Instruction:
CARLA (Methods): http://www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/
CARLA (Japanese): http://www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/japanese/intro
tospeechacts/index.htm
CARLA (Spanish): http://carla.umn.edu/speechacts/sp_pragmatics/home.html
COERLL (Methods): https://coerll.utexas.edu/methods/modules/pragmatics/
J. César Félix-Brasdefer (Spanish): http://www.indiana.edu/∼discprag/
index.html

Prof iciency Testing:

Language Testing International (LTI): https://www.languagetesting.com/

Screen Capturing and/or Editing Tools:

Camtasia: https://www.techsmith.com/video-editor.html
Filmora: https://filmora.wondershare.com/
Jing: https://jing.en.softonic.com/?ex=REG-60.1
Screencast-O-Matic: https://screencast-o-matic.com/home
Snagit: https://www.techsmith.com/screen-capture.html

Student Curation:
Cool Tools for School: https://cooltoolsforschool.net/curation-tools/
WordPress: https://linkinglearning.wordpress.com/2015/03/06/digital-content-
curation-a-vital-strategy-for-education/
Wakelet: https://wakelet.com/

Text Chat Platforms:

Bilingua: https://bilingua.io/
HelloTalk: https://www.hellotalk.com/#en
HiNative: https://hinative.com/
Tandem: https://www.tandem.net/
 eResources  xxxiii

Voice Boards:
VoiceThread Home: https://voicethread.com/
VoiceThread Higher Education: https://voicethread.com/products/highered
VoiceThread K-12: https://voicethread.com/products/k12

Voice Recording Tools:

Audacity: https://www.audacityteam.org/
Online Voice Recorder: https://online-voice-recorder.com/
Vocaroo: https://vocaroo.com/

Chapter 4 Links
Basic Online Language Design and Delivery Collaboratory:
Home Page: https://sites.google.com/site/bolddcollaboratory/home
Workshops: https://sites.google.com/site/bolddcollaboratory/home/colla
boratory-panels-presentations

Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition

(CARL A) at the University of Minnesota:
CARLA’s Home Page: https://carla.umn.edu/
CARLA’s Summer Institutes: https://carla.umn.edu/institutes/index.html
CARLA’s Onsite Workshops: https://carla.umn.edu/presentations/index.html
CoBaLTT (CARLA): https://carla.umn.edu/cobaltt/index.html
CARLA’s Wiki: http://carlatech.pbworks.com/w/page/15065374/FrontPage

Center for Language & Technology (CLT) at

the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa:
Designing, Developing, and Teaching Online and Hybrid Technology Intensive
Courses: https://clt.manoa.hawaii.edu/designing-developing-teaching-
online-hti-course-resources/
Online Teaching Resources: https://clt.manoa.hawaii.edu/online-teaching-
resources/
Projects: https://clt.manoa.hawaii.edu/project-listing/#current-projects
xxxiv eResources

Center for Open Educational Resources and Language

Learning (COERLL) at the University of Texas at Austin:
COERLL’s Home Page: https://www.coerll.utexas.edu/coerll/
COERLL’s Language Learning Resources: https://www.coerll.utexas.edu/
coerll/materials/language-learning-materials
COERLL’s Teaching Methods Resources: https://www.coerll.utexas.edu/
coerll/materials/teaching-methods
COERLL’s Open Education Resources: https://www.coerll.utexas.edu/coerll/
materials/open-education

Computer-Assisted Language Instruction Consortium (CALICO):

Home Page: https://calico.org/
Conference: https://calico.org/calico-conference/
SIGs: https://calico.org/sigs/
CALICO Journal: https://journals.equinoxpub.com/index.php/CALICO
CALICO’s Edited Book Series: https://calico.org/book-series/

EDUCAUSE:
Home Page: https://www.educause.edu/
Core Data Service Tool: https://www.educause.edu/research-and-publications/
research/core-data-service

European Association of Computer-Assisted Language Learning:

Home page: http://www.eurocall-languages.org/
Conference: http://www.eurocall-languages.org/conference-homepage
The EuroCALL Review: https://polipapers.upv.es/index.php/eurocall/index
ReCall Journal: http://www.eurocall-languages.org/publications/recall-journal

International Association for Language

Learning Technology (IALLT):
Home Page: https://iallt.org/about/
Regional Groups: https://iallt.org/about/regional-groups/
Conference: https://iallt.org/conferences/
IALLT Journal: https://journal.iallt.org/
FLTMAG: https://fltmag.com/
 eResources  xxxv

Mentoring Program for Online Language Teachers:

Application for ACTFL Mentoring Program: https://www.actfl.org/learn/
mentoring-program
ACTFL DL SIG / NFLRC Mentoring Program for Online Language Teachers:
http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/events/view/106/
Resources for the ACTFL DL SIG / NFLRC Mentoring Program for Online
Language Teachers: http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/events/view/105/

Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning

and Online Teaching (MERLOT):
Home Page: https://www.merlot.org/merlot/
World Language Community: https://www.merlot.org/merlot/WorldLangu
ages.htm

National Foreign Language Resource Center (NFLRC)

at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa:
NFLRC Home Page: http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/
NFLRC Projects: http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/projects/
NFLRC Online Professional Development: http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/projects/
view/2014D/
NFLRC PEBBLES (Project-Based Language Learning Repository): http://
nflrc.hawaii.edu/projects/view/2014G/
NFLRC Project-Based Language Learning: http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/projects/
view/2014A/

North Carolina Virtual Public School (NCVPS):

Home Page: https://ncvps.org/

Online Learning Consortium (OLC):

Home Page: https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/
Online Teaching Certificate Programs: https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/
learn/teaching-certificates/
xxxvi eResources

Other U.S. National Language Resource Centers:

Center for Advanced Language Proficiency Education and Research
(CALPER): http://calper.la.psu.edu/
Center for Applied Second Language Studies (CASLS): https://casls.uoregon
.edu/
Center for Educational Resources in Culture, Language, and Literacy
(CERCLL): http://cercll.arizona.edu
Center for Languages of the Central Asian Region (CELCAR): https://celcar
.indiana.edu/
Center for Urban Language Teaching and Research (CULTR): https://cultr
.gsu.edu/
National African Language Resource Center (NALRC): https://nalrc.indiana
.edu/
National East Asian Languages Resource Center (NEALRC): https://nealrc
.osu.edu/
National Heritage Language Resource Center (NHLRC): https://nhlrc.ucla
.edu/NHLRC/home
The Assessment and Evaluation Language Resource Center (AELRC):
https://aelrc.georgetown.edu/
The Center for Slavic, Eurasian and East European Studies (CSEEES): https://
slaviccenters.duke.edu/
The National Resource Center for Asian Languages (NRCAL): http://www
.fullerton.edu/nrcal/
The Open Language Resource Center (OLRC): http://olrc.ku.edu/
Professionals in Education Advancing Research and Language Learning
(PEARLL): http://www.pearll.nflc.umd.edu/
Second Language Teaching and Research Center (L2TReC): https://l2trec
.utah.edu/

STARTALK:
Home Page: https://startalk.umd.edu/public/about
STARTALK Grant Application Information: https://startalk.umd.edu/
sophie/#/app/home

Telecollaboration:
Telecollaboration Readings (CARLA): https://carla.umn.edu/technology/
modules/cmc/readings.html
 eResources  xxxvii

Telecollaboration Examples (CARLA): https://carla.umn.edu/technology/

modules/cmc/examples.html
How to Create a Telecollaboration (CARLA): https://carla.umn.edu/
technology/modules/cmc/create.html
Telecollaboration Resources (CARLA): https://carla.umn.edu/technology/
modules/cmc/resources.html

WebQuests:
Overview of Webquests: https://webquest.org/
Search for Webquests: http://www.webquest.org/search/index.php
Information on Webquests: https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/web
quests
How to Create a Webquest (CARLA): https://carla.umn.edu/technology/
modules/webquests/create.html

Chapter 5 Links:
ACTFL Performance Descriptors for Language Learners:
https://cms.azed.gov/home/GetDocumentFile?id=5748a47daadebe04c0b
66e64

CARL A’s Integrated Performance Assessments (IPAs):

https://carla.umn.edu/assessment/vac/CreateUnit/p_2.html

Community of Inquiry:
Community of Inquiry (CoI) Website: https://coi.athabascau.ca/
Community of Inquiry (CoI) Survey: https://coi.athabascau.ca/coi-model/
coi-survey/

Linguafolio Digital Portfolios:

Linguafolio: https://linguafolio.uoregon.edu/site/landing-page

NCSSFL-ACTFL Can-Do Statements:

https://www.actfl.org/resources/ncssfl-actfl-can-do-statements
xxxviii eResources

Online Student Connectedness Survey (OSCS),

available in the article below:
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1171

Stock Photos and Videos:

Pexels Website: https://www.pexels.com/
Pexels’ Licensing Agreement: https://www.pexels.com/photo-license/

Survey Tools:
Google Forms: https://www.google.com/forms/about/
SurveyMonkey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/

Word-Class Instructional Design and

Assessment (WIDA) Resources:
WIDA K-12 Can Do Descriptors, Key Uses Edition: https://wida.wisc.edu/
teach/can-do/descriptors
WIDA Performance Definitions for Speaking and Writing: https://wida
.wisc.edu/sites/default/files/resource/Performance-Definitions-Expressive-
Domains.pdf
WIDA Performance Definitions for Listening and Reading: https://wida
.wisc.edu/sites/default/files/resource/Performance-Definitions-Receptive-
Domains.pdf
Author Biographies
Victoria Russell, Ph.D., is a Professor of Spanish and Foreign Language
Education at Valdosta State University (VSU). She has been a language edu-
cator for the past 30 years. Victoria earned a doctorate in Second Language
Acquisition & Instructional Technology in 2009 after spending many years
teaching at the middle, high school, and community college levels both in
the United States and abroad. She began teaching Spanish online in 2007
and she currently serves as the Coordinator of Online Programs for the
Department of Modern and Classical Languages at VSU, where she helped
create fully online degree and certificate programs in Spanish, French, and
TESOL, as well as online MAT programs in Foreign Language Education
and English for Speakers of Other Languages. She has published in the areas
of online language teaching and learning, world language teacher education,
and Spanish pragmatics. She led the effort, with Dr. Kathryn Murphy-Judy
and Dr. Julio C. Rodríguez, to create a national mentoring program for
online language educators, she served as Chair of the American Council
on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) Distance Learning Special
Interest Group from 2015–2018, and she has given numerous national and
international workshops and presentations on online language course design,
development, and delivery.

Kathryn Murphy-Judy, Ph.D., h  as been teaching French for over 45 years.

She has been working with computer-assisted language learning (CALL) since
1983. In 1997, she started teaching language online. She created first- and

xxxix
xl  Author Biographies

second-year online French courses at Virginia Commonwealth University in

2010–2011. She co-created the Basic Online Language Design and Delivery
Collaboratory with colleagues from the Computer-Assisted Language
Instruction Consortium (CALICO) and ACTFL in 2012. Dr. Murphy-
Judy has given numerous workshops for teachers on the design and delivery of
online language teaching and learning since 2012 in the United States, Canada,
China, Colombia, Mexico, and Taiwan. She helped create the ACTFL Distance
Learning Special Interest Group/National Foreign Language Resource Center
(NFLRC) Mentoring Program for Online Language Teachers with Dr. Russell
and Dr. Rodríguez of the NFLRC. She has also edited two volumes on CALL
in the CALICO Monograph Series and has written many articles and chapters
on her online and digital work.
Introduction

If you have opened this guidebook, you are likely looking for guidance
in designing, developing, and delivering online language teaching. Even if
you’re a veteran classroom language teacher, you may not have had expo-
sure to teaching in an online environment. And even if you do have expe-
rience integrating instructional technologies in your classroom, you may
not know where or exactly how to start creating and delivering online
learning for students of your language. Or, you may have some experience
teaching online, but you want to learn new techniques that will improve
your students’ outcomes and experiences. Whichever your specific need for
implementing language instruction online, you’ve come to the right place.
It is important to note that this book will be helpful for teachers of all
world languages, including those who teach English as a second or foreign
language. Although we work in higher education in the United States, we
have made every effort to be global in our exploration of practices and
resources. We have also included plenty of resources and content for those
who work in K-12 settings.
As the authors of this guide, we have many years of experience creating, teach-
ing, researching, and giving hands-on workshops in the field of online language
education. We are two markedly different educators/technologists with a healthy
mix of knowledge, experiences, and styles that complement one another. We

1
2 Introduction

are similar in that we are both language teachers, language teacher educators,
and we both have designed, developed, and delivered countless online language
courses. Moreover, we are both grounded in the standards-based communica-
tive language teaching principles and practices that underpin this guidebook.
We have discovered through years of working together, first in the Basic Online
Language Design and Delivery (BOLDD) Collaboratory, then in the American
Council of Teachers of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) Distance Learning Special
Interest Group (DL SIG), and now on this book, that our differing strengths and
perspectives push us to rethink and reexamine our preexisting notions regarding
online language education.Therefore, in this book we have managed to assemble
a wealth of models, practices, and research that are expanded and enriched by our
differences. Still, we have melded them into a single voice with a common mission:
to share the best of what we know and what we do in language teaching online
with you, our fellow language educators. We acknowledge the influence from the
ideas of and collaborations with experts in computer-assisted language learning
(CALL) whom we have met through BOLDD, ACTFL, the Computer-Assisted
Language Instruction Consortium (CALICO), the International Association for
Language Learning and Technology (IALLT), several of the national language
resource centers (LRC), as well as our colleagues who are language educators
from across the world. This guide is a compendium, then, of the research, strate-
gies, practices, and materials that we have gathered over many years of working in
this field. Throughout the writing process, we found ourselves having recourse to
some of the very strategies and media for collaboration that we describe in these
pages. We value multilingualism and interculturality, and the suggestions that we
offer in this book will help you create a meaningful cultural context for language
instruction, whether the delivery model is fully online, blended, or flipped. Our
primary aim here is to respond to your needs for guidance by sharing what we
know and do—teaching languages online.
A few definitions are in order. Online language pedagogy refers to knowl-
edge of the pedagogy and the appropriate technologies to teach language
online. At times, “te(a)chnologies” is used to describe the harmonious blend
of sound language teaching and appropriate technologies that promote student
learning. Sometimes we will refer to online teaching and learning as “eLearn-
ing,” “distance learning,” and “virtual learning,” which are all occasionally used,
although distance learning encompasses more delivery options than are cov-
ered here, like two-way live video instruction. We also address a variety of
learning environments and delivery modes: “online,” “hybrid” or “blended,”
“classroom,” and “flipped.” We use the Online Learning Consortium (OLC)
definitions by Mayadas, Miller, and Sener (2015) who assert that “Online” or
 Introduction  3

“eLearning” refers to: “[a]ll course activity … done online [with] no require-
ments for on-campus activity” (p. 0). A blended or hybrid course—the two
terms used synonymously in this guide—indicates “[o]nline activity [that] is
mixed with classroom meetings, replacing a significant percentage, but not all
required face-to-face instructional activities” (p. 0). A classroom course is one
where “[c]ourse activity is organized around scheduled class meetings held
onsite at an institution or another location” (p. 0). We also use the terms “tra-
ditional,” “brick-and-mortar,” and “face-to-face” for campus-based classrooms.
For flipped learning, we prefer the Flipped Learning Network (2014) defi-
nition, which is “a pedagogical approach” that creates “a dynamic, interactive
[group] learning environment” for learners to explore and apply concepts cre-
atively with their teacher (p. 1). The teacher acts as a “guide on the side” for
group sessions, all the while providing direct instruction for the learners in
their individual learning spaces online (Flipped Learning Network, 2014, p. 1).
As we explain and show various kinds of eLearning, we refer to them variously
as “programs,” “courses,” “modules,” and “lessons.” Some of us design, develop,
and deliver an entire program, which may include more than one course and
may span various levels of instruction. Others create a single course composed
of several modules.We use the generally accepted term “module” to refer to the
units or blocks of instruction within a course that are based on an organizing
set of learning objectives. For the smaller chunks of a unit of instruction, we use
words like “lesson” or refer to them more generally as learning materials, activ-
ities, or opportunities. Within individual chapters of this guide, terminologies
specific to its content will be defined. When we teach language in an instruc-
tional setting, most often there are at least two languages operating. We call the
language of the school and its surrounding linguistic community the “L1” for
“first language.” Sometimes, we will call it the “home” or “native” language.
For the language we teach, we generally write “L2,” for “second language,”
but we may also call it the “target language.” We occasionally use the term
“affordance” in line with Hoven’s (2007) definition “to refer to the character-
istics and potential uses that individual learners felt that different software tools
had to offer them” (p. 136). Other technological and pedagogical terms are
defined as they come up. Don’t be afraid of this book being too technical or
jargonistic. All of the technical and pedagogical terms are defined within the
chapters and we provide clear examples that illustrate their meaning and usage.
How should you use this book? Its structure is simple and straightforward.We
expect you, our readers, to have widely varying backgrounds, and therefore, a
range of needs. Each chapter stands alone and can be consulted for its individual
guidance. To get a better idea of the content that is covered, this introduction
4 Introduction

contains a summary of each of the chapters and their major sections. The first
chapter begins by setting up the basic structure for the design, development, and
delivery of an online language learning project. The frame is a time-tested,
process-model called ADDIE, which stands for analysis, design, delivery, imple-
mentation, and evaluation. Based on that model, Chapter 1 explores the analysis
(A) and design (D) phases in depth. The section on analysis uses a question-
answer format to tease out the most important considerations that need to be
investigated before beginning to plan and build a successful design. It prompts
readers to think about the context, the technologies and media, the learners,
the course content, and the instructional staffing that is required for building an
online lesson, module, course, and/or program. Armed with the answers to these
questions, readers can move on to the next section, which covers the design
phase. The design model detailed here is called backward design or learning by
design. By beginning with the end in mind—that is, the desired learning goals—
designers next determine what kinds of evidence the learners must produce
through assessments to show that they have reached their learning outcomes.
Only after articulating the goals and their assessments does the designer take
up the task of creating the learning materials and opportunities that will lead
learners toward the targeted knowledge and skills.Those of you not tasked with
designing a new program or revising an old one may opt to skip all or parts of
this chapter. Still, the information on how to create teaching, social, and cogni-
tive presence is applicable beyond just designing online projects. Knowing how
an online project has been conceptualized and organized, too, is a good back-
ground for teaching online.The information in Chapter 1 may also help online
instructors better scaffold student learning needs that may arise along the way.
Chapter 2 proceeds to the second D of ADDIE, development. During the
development phase, all the materials from course content to user guides are
laid out. Yet, in this guide, we start with developing the most important ele-
ment in the learning puzzle: the learner. Developing an online learner to be
successful in the language, to learn how to learn a language, to learn how to
learn online, and to become an autonomous, lifelong learner is perhaps the
most critical task of course development. Developing the learner integrates
into all of the other facets of development, from setting up the learning plat-
form and creating the orientation and support documentation to using video
to reach today’s visual learners. Interactions, too, are foundational to devel-
oping learners’ communication skills and cultural knowledge. Interactivity is
a key to engaging learners and moving new knowledge from short- to long-
term memory. The three kinds of interactions that learners engage in—with
the teacher, with other learners, and with the content—are examined through
 Introduction  5

the lens of online language pedagogy along with a host of technologies that
optimize online language teaching and learning. The ins and outs of assessment
are spelled out next, with ideas for creating them as well as other resources and
ancillaries that will help differentiate learning for all students. The last section
of this chapter takes a walk on the wild side. With the explosion in technol-
ogies, artificial intelligence, robotics, and social reconfigurations that promise
radical changes yet to come, it suggests ways to keep ahead of the shockwave.
Chapter 3 is, in every sense, the heart of this book. We are language edu-
cators and this chapter looks at how and why we do what we do from the
vantage of online delivery. By exploring what makes teaching language online
special, we come to more fully understand our core practices, not only online
and in blended and flipped environments, but in every language class we may
ever teach. The theories, approaches, practices, and pedagogies that are pre-
sented in this chapter make our teaching special across the board. The chapter
begins with a deep look at the competencies that underpin mastery of online
language pedagogy, which is foundational for all online language educators.
The authors also demonstrate, with guidelines and clear examples, how to
implement communicative language teaching (CLT) and core practices—also
known as high leverage teaching practices—in online, blended, or flipped
learning environments. Of course, throughout this chapter, the real focus is
on what the learners will be able to do as a result of our instruction; there-
fore, Chapter 3 is all about integration (or teaching), which is the “I” of the
ADDIE model. This chapter includes building learners’ pragmatic, intercul-
tural, and communicative competence; creating standards-based lessons that
are appropriate for learner proficiency level; and assessing students holistically
to promote CLT, to name a few of the topics that are covered. Some readers
may opt to start with this chapter to reaffirm their grasp of CLT and to learn
how to enact it online. This chapter will also help readers prepare themselves
for the exciting transition to online delivery. Nowadays, there is no escaping
eLearning, and as this chapter clearly shows, we wouldn’t want to!
In Chapter 4, the authors stress the importance of seeking professional
development (PD) to improve our skills and create our toolbox for teaching
online. It is a short but meaty chapter that is filled to the brim with a full range
of PD, including how to plug into an online community of practitioners—
whether through participating in an online mentoring program, attending a
summer institute, or participating in webinars. This chapter describes many
ways to connect with others who teach language online.The authors also show
readers where to locate online professional development materials in online
language pedagogy and how to become involved in professional organizations
6 Introduction

that offer conferences, webinars, and workshops for online language educa-
tors. Included in this chapter are many open educational resources provided
by Language Resource Centers (LRCs) that are located around the United
States. Several LRCs are highlighted in the chapter, with many others listed in
the book’s eResources. All of the LRCs offer valuable materials, resources, and
activities for those who teach language in online and blended environments,
including resources for those who teach less commonly taught languages.This
is a go-to chapter for both new and veteran language faculty.
Chapter 5 rounds up the core content of the guidebook. This chapter on
relevant research in online language teaching reviews studies on learner and
teacher satisfaction, online class size, language learner anxiety, and best prac-
tices, all of which are topics that are fundamental to online course delivery.
It also examines studies on social presence, connectedness, and assessment,
which are often more difficult for instructors to enact in the online environ-
ment. The research is presented in a way that is clear and free of jargon; and
most importantly, the authors provide many practical implications from the
research findings that readers can apply to their own instructional contexts. In
other words, readers learn about what works and why in online, blended, and
flipped language classrooms. After an online teaching project launches, studies
like those presented in Chapter 5 ask important questions about the effec-
tiveness and the outcomes of an eLearning intervention. From collecting data
and conducting research, we learn what works and what doesn’t. Each study
reviewed is followed by pedagogical implications and practical examples for
improving our online practices. In the ADDIE model, the evaluation phase
is not an end, but rather the beginning of new and better practices based on
evaluation data and an examination of the research.
The concluding chapter brings this journey into online teaching and learning
to an end. But just as this book begins with the end in mind, the end opens up to
new beginnings. Details on recent and current growth across the globe remind
us how timely our endeavors are to design, develop, and deliver online language
teaching. Moreover, the conclusion throws the doors of language education wide
open to see our future. All we need to do is walk confidently through, armed
with the knowledge, skills, and practices of effective online language educators.
You may be asking, “Why this book now”? All around us, increasingly, our
fellow language professionals are being asked to design, develop, and teach
online or blended language courses, all too often without the necessary pro-
fessional development and tools. While we are familiar with many excellent
books, articles, and websites that touch on teaching languages online (and
which are noted throughout this book), we found that the full scope—from
 Introduction  7

design and development to delivery, framed by communicative language

teaching, backed by studies on what is working and why, and bolstered by
additional resources for professional development—simply hasn’t been avail-
able in a single, practical location. So, our primary purpose has been to craft
a book that delivers it all. While this may be the most immediate aim of the
book, we have kept in mind that there are issues of great importance, not just
to language teachers, but to all educators in the 21st century, such as respond-
ing to the increasing student demand for online learning.
We see enrollments increasing steadily online while the general college
enrollments are decreasing (Lederman, 2018). We know in higher education in
the United States that the number of students taking brick-and-mortar language
classes and the number of programs offering languages are declining (Looney
& Lusin, 2018). Last year, a loss of 651 language programs from 2016–2019 was
reported (Johnson, 2019). Access to language learning is needed, especially in
the United States. Online delivery may be able to counteract at least some
of the loss in student numbers by opening access to non-traditional students
(Clinefelter, Aslanian, & Magda, 2019). On the other side of the virtual desk,
online education may help offset the critical shortage of teachers by opening
doors to educators who cannot travel to onsite teaching locations. The con-
clusion of the book discusses the future of online language teaching as well as
how new technologies may impact online language education.
Another reason to design and deliver quality online language programs is to
increase digital literacy. Through carefully planned and scaffolded lessons, stu-
dents are led to engage with the communication devices they will need pro-
fessionally and personally for their future. Intentionally crafted activities and
interactions promote their collaborative skills, also needed in their 21st century
toolbox. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(2013) is making important strides at the national level to prepare students for
21st century skills, such as the ability to use, access, and manipulate informa-
tion creatively, the ability to adapt to change and complexity, and “broadly, the
capacity to appreciate diversity, disorder and ambiguity” (Bangou & Vasilopoulos,
2018, p. 146). While traditional classrooms can and do realize some of these
goals, online teaching and learning pushes students to their limits in these areas.
For language educators transitioning to the online environment, we offer
this volume. Some of us read better in print, others want electronic books. This
one is offered in both formats. The website companion to the book on the
Routledge Taylor & Francis website includes a tab for eResources to connect
you with a wealth of further readings, materials, images, videos, and more to
expand your thinking and practices beyond the limits of this book. The beauty
8 Introduction

of education is that it is a never-ending quest for knowledge.We are glad that

you have chosen to pursue yours with us through this guidebook, thereby
joining us in the thrilling new frontiers of online language education. The
cyber-sky’s the limit.

References
Bangou, F., & Vasilopoulos, G. (2018). Disrupting course design in online CALL
teacher education: An experimentation. E-Learning and Digital Media, 15(3),
146–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753018773765
Clinefelter, D. L., Aslanian, C. B., & Magda,A. J. (2019). Online college students 2019:
Comprehensive data on demands and preferences. Louisville, KY: Wiley edu, LLC.
Flipped Learning Network (FLN). (2014). The four pillars of F-L-I-P™.
Retrieved from https://flippedlearning.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/
FLIP_handout_FNL_Web.pdf
Hoven, D. (2007). The affordances of technology for student teachers to
shape their teacher education experience. In M. A. Kassen, R. Z. Lavine,
K. Murphy-Judy, & M. Peters (Eds.), Preparing and developing technology-
proficient L2 teachers (pp. 133–163). San Marcos, TX: CALICO.
Johnson, S. (2019, January). Colleges lose a ‘stunning’ 651 foreign language
programs in 3 years, Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from https://
www.chronicle.com/article/Colleges-Lose-a-Stunning-/245526/
Lederman, D. (2018, December). Online enrollments grow, but pace slows.
Inside Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/
digital-learning/article/2019/12/11/more-students-study-online-rate-
growth-slowed-2018
Looney, D., & Lusin, N. (2018, February). Enrollments in languages other than
English in United States institutions of higher education, Summer 2016 and Fall
2016: Preliminary report. Retrieved from https://www.mla.org/content/
download/83540/ 2197676/2016-Enrollments-Short-Report.pdf
Mayadas, F., Miller, G., & Sener, J. (2015, April). Definitions of e-learning courses
and programs, version 2.0. OLC Insights [weblog]. Retrieved from https://
onlinelearningconsortium.org/updated-e-learning-definitions-2/
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
(2013). Innovative learning environments. Paris, France: Educational
Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/
10.1787/9789264203488-en
Chapter 1

What Are the Basics

of Online Course
Design?
Introduction
What do you need to know to design a quality online language course? Before
accepting the challenge to create an online language program, course, or
module, the educators who initiate and shepherd the project should ask them-
selves, “Why are we doing this?” The answer should be, “To increase learner
proficiency in language and intercultural communication and to include the
21st century skills of digital literacy and autonomous learning.” Those are key
elements that should be included in the resulting statement of purpose. For
content courses (e.g., literature, civilization, language for business, etc.), one
includes the appropriate knowledge and skills as goals. Armed with a clear
vision of what students will be able to do by the end of the program, course,
or module, the project team gathers models, tools, materials, and resources
to realize its goals. This chapter focuses on what a project team or designer
should consider for completely online courses as well as for the online mod-
ules of blended and flipped courses. Often, language faculty with little to no
formal training in instructional design and even less in instructional design
for online teaching and learning are called upon to create online language
courses and programs, according to data from the Basic Online Language

9
10  Basics of Online Course Design

Design and Delivery Collaboratory (BOLDD) Survey of Online Language

Education (Murphy-Judy & Johnshoy, 2017). This chapter offers theories and
research and models in instructional design, distance and online instructional
design, and computer-assisted language learning (CALL). It also culls from
the effective practices of veteran online language educators. The authors pri-
marily address secondary and postsecondary educational settings and adult
and young adult learners; yet, corporate, military, and government educators
may also benefit from this content. While the design principles covered in this
chapter apply to secondary education, they do not specifically address state
or district standards, parental oversight, privacy issues for minors, and the like.
Such issues should arise during the analysis phase of the design process by
K-12 design teams. Still, good instructional design, standards-based programs,
and proficiency-based communicative teaching and learning are foundational
across settings, languages, levels of instruction, and modes of delivery in world
languages. See Chapter 3 for a deeper explanation of the importance of pro-
fessional standards and proficiency-based courses and programs.
Not all online educators design their own online programs, courses, or
modules, so some readers may opt to skim this chapter, but knowledge of
how online programs are built from the ground up may prove useful. This
chapter will help those facing the daunting task of designing or redesign-
ing an online second- or foreign-language program or course. The chapter
begins with an explanation of the Analysis-Design-Development-Integration-
Evaluation (ADDIE) process of instructional design, since this is the founda-
tion of good design. Next, the analysis (A) and design (D) phases of ADDIE
are described in further detail and with particular regard to the field of
online language education. The design model used is that of backward
design, which shifts the emphasis from content coverage as the objective
to what learners will be able to do as a result of instruction (Wiggins &
McTighe, 2005). Finally, given the centrality of evaluation (E) in the ADDIE
model, both the analysis and design sections of this chapter each end with a
checklist, which will ensure that designers have planned for and included all
of the relevant elements.

The ADDIE Model

ADDIE is an industry standard for the instructional design process (Clark,
2015; Dick & Carey, 2014; Gustafson & Branch, 2002; Magliaro & Shambaugh,
2006). In this chapter and the next, it serves as an organizing principle. A
visual representation of this model is presented in Figure 1.1. Each step of the
 Basics of Online Course Design  11

Figure 1.1  An ADDIE model for online language design, development, and delivery, graphic
created by Kathryn Murphy-Judy.
CC BY SA 4.0.

ADDIE process is defined in line with Figure 1.1. After the short definitions,
there is an in-depth discussion of the analysis and design phases.
In Chapter 1, the authors focus on the analysis and design aspects of
ADDIE. Chapter 2 covers the development phase of ADDIE, and the authors
show examples of how technology tools and applications are used to develop
an online language class. In Chapter 3, the authors focus on different aspects
of integration (teaching) and how to teach online communicatively, while
Chapter 4 provides information on online professional development and open
educational resources for online language educators. Chapter 5 examines
the research on online language teaching and learning and the authors pro-
vide examples of how to incorporate research and best practices into online
language courses. The evaluation piece of ADDIE is interwoven through all
of the chapters.
Instructional design is a systematic and systemic approach to creating
effective, efficient, and engaging instructional experiences. It follows method-
ical and logical progression, such that its various elements interact in dynamic
12  Basics of Online Course Design

and interdependent ways, leading to the creation of entirely online, blended,

flipped, or traditional, brick-and-mortar instruction (Hromalik, 2016). ADDIE
stems from a cognitive or behavioral instructional theory of learning (Skinner,
1974/2017), where learning is assumed to progress through a step-by-step pro-
cess. Later learning theories, like constructivism, (Vygotsky, 1980) construc-
tionism (Harel & Papert, 1991), and connectivism (Downes, 2005; Siemens,
2005) recognize that learning is much “messier” and thus, offer options for
more student-centered and differentiated teaching and learning. The ADDIE
approach offers a systematic process to help designers organize and execute an
effective workflow, regardless of the theory of learning.
The “A” in the ADDIE model stands for careful, comprehensive analysis.
This step serves to explore key questions: who is initiating, supporting, and
driving the project and what are the broader institutional parameters (learning
management system and technology infrastructure, administrative mandates
and policies, instructional staffing); which technologies and media will drive
and support the design, development, integration, and evaluation of the
program; who are the learners in relation to the targeted instruction; and,
what are learning goals, philosophies, approaches, and strategies for realizing
the desired learning outcomes.
Analysis is followed by Design. Design provides a coherent structure and
framework from which units, modules, tasks, assignments, and assessments,
as well as support documents, resources, and support mechanisms eventually
emerge.To engage in effective action, whether in life or instruction, according
to Stephen Covey (1989) one should always “begin with the end in mind”
(p. 98). It is the design mantra for this chapter.
For the Development phase, or the second D in ADDIE, the designer must
begin with the learning goals that are based on professional standards, which are
then broken down into unit or module objectives.The developer will then cre-
ate the summative assessments, which will match up with the overall learning
goals and objectives and lesson or module formative assessments that are tied to
the course objectives (this is known as backward design). By starting with the
creation of the summative assessments, all of the lesson materials, tasks, activities,
and formative assessments will follow; however, they must be sequenced logi-
cally. This process is the foundation of a sound design framework that is based
on clear learning goals, objectives, and professional standards. In the ADDIE
process, the course creators revisit each of the previous stages as needed. For
example, during development, they may revisit the analysis and design phases.
After doing a trial run of a new course with colleagues (alpha testing) or a
small set of students (beta testing), the real work begins. The rubber hits the
 Basics of Online Course Design  13

road with Integration. Although discussed briefly in this chapter, it is the stuff
of Chapter 3, which shows readers how to deliver online language instruction
communicatively.
And, finally the “E” of Evaluation, which has already been discussed in the
Introduction, explores processes of evaluation that are integral to each of the
ADDIE phases. It is not the end of the road, but rather a feedback mech-
anism to inform and improve the entire project continuously. It ensures the
maintenance of the quality and sustainability of the program. The ADDIE
model, as clearly visualized in Figure 1.1, emphasizes the centrality of evalua-
tion, such that, at every juncture in its creation, development, and deployment,
there is reflection, critique, and possibly revision. Since evaluation charts pro-
gress toward the “end in mind” of each step as well as that of the entire project,
it is addressed at the end of each step in the design process. When one begins
with the end in mind, evaluation can and should take place at the end of each
stage of the process.

Analysis
This section is intended for faculty tasked with designing an online language
program or course but who have little or no access to instructional design
support staff and are not sure where to start. In most institutions, the curricular
goals—what students should be able to do, know, and understand as a result
of a program or course—are usually pre-defined. Still, an in-depth analysis
may well lead to revising, refining, or improving the targeted outcomes as
they evolve within the online context. A wide-scale analysis stage may be less
important for the design of modules in hybrid and flipped courses, where fac-
ulty have a different rapport with their students as well as having recourse to
face-to-face sessions.
Analysis is critical to the creation of effective online learning environments.
According to Shearer (2003), analysis must include, “the audience character-
istics, geographic dispersion of the audience, the technologies available to the
audience, the goals of the learners, the goals and missions of the learning
organization, the costs that must be recovered, the costs of delivery, the polit-
ical environment at the time for the learning organization, the faculty com-
pensation, and the market competition” (p. 275). Analysis, then, includes the
obvious and even the political and financial reasons for launching an online
language initiative. It explores and appraises the institutional setting as well
as the human element, such as instructional designers (if there are any), fac-
ulty, students, and staff. Moreover, other institutionally specific factors must be
14  Basics of Online Course Design

recognized before actual design concepts begin to take shape. Analysis should
include the learning theories (cognitive, constructivist, constructionist, and/or
connectivist) and pedagogies (communicative, task-based, content-based, etc.)
that will frame the project (see Chapter 3). It accounts for institutional (or
departmental) curriculum, learning goals, and anticipated learning outcomes
in the projected online environment. Therefore Analysis is a highly detailed
section of the present chapter because the resulting comprehensive informa-
tion about the context, the means, the people, and the content will pave the
way to a robust, success-oriented design, which will reduce costs, delays, and
problems. It allows the project team or designer to start identifying, locating,
and gathering the people, tools, and materials that the project will need. It will
provide the information needed to plot out the trajectories and time frames
for a timely, successful launch. Moreover, analysis persists throughout the life
of the project, even after its launch, since ongoing evaluation may indicate that
new or revised analyses are warranted.
Analysis involves a mega-view of the whole context of the instructional
project. In this phase of ADDIE, an overarching pre-appraisal of all the reasons
for creating an online program or course helps the designer(s), developer(s),
and faculty not only to frame the project but also to sustain it throughout its
development and deployment phases. Broadly posed, these questions include:
What is the primary motivation for this initiative: student demand; admin-
istrative cost cutting or revenue generation; better ways to deliver language
instruction; a commercial venture with the expectation of marketability
(a growing concern for academic entities); or a “techie” interest in applying
cool new tools, data mining, gaming, virtual reality, or other new emerging
technologies and innovative approaches and practices for language learning?
Which levels of administration, management, and faculty are most supportive
of the initiative and what will keep them on board (and what might alienate
them)? Knowing the vested interest(s) lying behind the impetus to create an
online language program or course is vital to designing for success, navigating
successfully through the various phases, and maintaining rapport with and
support of the major stakeholders. Moreover, the Association of Departments
of Foreign Languages (ADFL) has stated:

Many language departments across the country teach hybrid and online
courses. The decision to implement such courses should be one that is
fully supported by the language department concerned. The addition of
hybrid or online language courses does not save time or money and is not
a cost-saving measure. Rather, adding hybrid or online language courses
 Basics of Online Course Design  15

requires the use of more resources than the traditional course and requires
additional funding and time on the part of all involved. The process must
include input from all stakeholders (e.g., administrators, technical support,
instructors, students), and administrators must make a long-term commit-
ment to providing the resources to sustain such courses.
(ADFL, 2014)

The questions detailed below systematically probe the institutional and admin-
istrative context, technological and distance media concerns, the learner pop-
ulation, the content, and finally, instruction and instructional staffing. They are
the questions that should ground an online language project before any actual
design choices are made.

Context Analysis
In this segment, questions are raised relating to the overarching institutional
and administrative motivations, structures, infrastructures, support units, as well
as budgetary and financial issues. These questions will help the reader under-
stand what is involved in context analysis.

What or Who Is Driving the Creation of This Online

Language Program?
Most educators would prefer that the impetus for any learning environ-
ment or new program would arise organically from a teaching and learning
dynamic. Realistically, other forces often lie behind the creation of an online
program or the conversion of a traditional, brick-and-mortar venue to hybrid
or online delivery. Still, a push in the direction of online instruction may
be what is needed to urge traditional faculty to embrace digital media or
to revamp an “old school” curriculum into something more suitable for
21st century learning. As Clayton Christensen of Harvard has warned, students
are opting with their keyboards and their feet to pursue education outside
brick-and-mortar institutions. He has predicted that over half of all American col-
leges and universities will close or go bankrupt by 2030 (Christensen, 2011). For
language programs, the downward trend in postsecondary enrollments highlighted
by Looney and Lusin (2019) in the Modern Language Association (MLA) report
on 2016 enrollments may in part stem from a lack of innovative, 21st century types
of language learning approaches, in particular, online and mobile delivery, that
stimulate and maintain student interest and provide the anytime, anywhere
learning that students today want. Ours is an economy of badge credentialing,
16  Basics of Online Course Design

24/7 access to knowledge and training, and modularized and open learning
(e.g., Git-hub and YouTube). If someone wants to learn a new skill, they
choose one or more media options that break down the process, skipping
those they already know or don’t find useful. Choice and flexibility can often
be a strong factor in learner enticement and engagement in online learning.
Other drivers for online language programs may arise from administrative
concerns to cut costs, increase revenue, address limited campus space issues,
attract new students, and increase enrollments. Faculty may want to launch an
online program to respond to student requests, to integrate new media, to exploit
new technology, or to address personal needs of limited time and/or mobility,
whether theirs, their students’, or both. Whatever forces drive what will neces-
sarily be a time-intensive and potentially costly endeavor, they must be faced
honestly and openly. They also need to be kept in mind throughout the design,
development, integration, and evaluation of the resulting program.Yet even if the
rationale for an online language program at the executive level may not be driven
entirely by learning needs or pedagogical issues, the designer or design team can
still construct a successful online program that realizes excellence in teaching
and learning. It requires negotiating the financial or administrative impetus with
sound, standards-based courseware, to the mutual benefit of everyone involved:
students, faculty, administration, and community. Valdosta State University
(VSU), for example, has created two fully online bachelor’s programs, in Spanish
and in French, with the Spanish program having won national awards as the best
online program and value for the money for students. These programs achieve
both financial and pedagogical goals.

What Are the Institutional Parameters?

Online language learning may emerge from a wide array of providers: a col-
lege or university, a school district, an online school, a company, a government,
or a military sector. It may take a variety of forms; the most frequently cited
by Murphy-Judy and Johnshoy (2017) are: an entirely online program; online
courses or sequences in a brick-and-mortar language department; a supple-
mental course in a given curriculum; developmental or remedial support
modules meant to enhance traditional, brick-and-mortar learning; a course or
several courses distributed across multiple campuses; a course or set of modules
intended for a cohort in a less-commonly-taught language or in other content
areas or disciplines (business, area studies, engineering, nursing, etc.); independent
or self-paced study modules; lessons within a traditional, on-campus language
course meant to increase or decrease class size or to individualize or differentiate
 Basics of Online Course Design  17

learning; or a response to learner needs for time- and place-independent interac-

tions (known as “asynchronous learning”). Increasingly, parts of a course are
provided online, as in hybrid and flipped classrooms.
Given the immense range of possible configurations, each new design must
be planned within its particular context. Arizona State University (ASU),
for example, offers an entire Spanish degree online at ASU Online called
“Ocourses”; yet, its brick-and-mortar campus also offers Spanish courses
online, called “icourses” that are completely distinct from the ASU Online
offerings. Such distinct programs, each with its own infrastructure and deploy-
ment, arise from the specificity of the institution, its needs, and those of the
targeted learner populations. Another example is the University of Maryland
Global Campus (UMGC), which offers many languages online and a major in
East Asian Studies with corresponding Japanese and Chinese language courses
also online. Since UMGC serves a large military and diplomatic student body
in the United States, courses for those populations are mostly offered asyn-
chronously for security and accessibility reasons. UMGC has adapted its time
frames to student needs by offering eight-week fixed-session courses. All of
their language offerings, except Korean, have online sections: Arabic, Chinese,
French, German, Japanese, and Spanish. Institutions with smaller footprints
than those of ASU and UMGC operate within their specific contexts. When
Carnegie Mellon University undertook its Online Learning Initiative (OLI),
its context included online course development in several disciplines funded by
large foundational grants (Hewlett, Gates, Kresge, Lumina, NSF, Spencer, W.S.
Johnson). Today, OLI language courses (French and Arabic) are used world-
wide in face-to-face, hybrid, flipped, and completely online venues, like the
online French program at Old Dominion University (ODU). North Carolina
Virtual Public School (NCVPS), Virtual Virginia, and Florida Virtual School
(FLVS), as K-12 providers, work within the public school systems of their
states. Commercial enterprises (Rosetta Stone, Duolingo, Mango Languages,
Busuu, FluentU, Babbel, etc.) and entities like the Defense Language Institute
face their own set of issues with respect to the target population, security issues,
revenue streams, as well as educational and state regulations and issues related
to accreditation and federal student loan programs. Readers are encouraged to
further explore the online language programs listed above to determine which
model best meets the needs of their context and leaners. Links to VSU, ASU,
UMGC, ODU, NCVPS, and FLVS are provided in the eResources section of
this book.
Some online educational programs may set their sights on learners nation-
wide if not worldwide. Where a program admits students from all over the
18  Basics of Online Course Design

country, national governmental regulations for interstate educational delivery

likely come into play. If the program targets international learners, supra-national
issues of educational regulations and accreditation need to be taken into
account. More information on these types of constraints are detailed below.

Where Is the Funding Coming From?

Closely related to the first question about institutional parameters is the ques-
tion of funding. It is essential to know at the design phase who is footing the
bill, how deep the pockets are, and what the criteria are for continued funding.
If funding is external, is a prototype or pilot course expected to stimulate fur-
ther funding? Designing for a prototype differs significantly from a completely
new program launch. For external funding, part of the analysis phase includes
researching, locating, and contacting funding sources (federal programs, foun-
dations, special donors, go-fund-me operations, loans, venture capital, etc.).
Obviously, the financial reality of a project determines many aspects in each
phase of its creation. It also factors into its breadth and time constraints.
If funding is internal to an institution or company, the kinds and amounts
of institutional support have to be analyzed and assessed. Will they be top-
down from the president or provost, a dean, the school board, or the CEO or
owner of a company? If so, will the project have to negotiate with each unit
whose support and participation are needed (the information technology unit,
faculty, public and alumni relations, the center for teaching excellence, the
online learning office, etc.) or will a specific administrative unit pave the way
and orchestrate all stakeholders? If the internal funding is bottom-up, arising
from the hard work of one or more faculty, what are the chances of eventually
getting additional financial support and continuation of the project? Will there
be financial and administrative support to “convince” those less than favorable
toward online education (administrators, other faculty, students, parents, etc.)?
Who are the go-to people who can provide support or bring their influence
to bear on the project?
Besides the funding for the analysis, design, and development phases, one
must also consider how the program will be sustained. Will it be through
tuition and fees? If it is a massive open online course (MOOC) or some
other open educational platform, in other words, courses that are openly
available for everyone in the community to use for free, will they be funded
through advertising, subscription, or fees for credentialing or badging (an
e-credential offered to those who successfully complete their training)? Is it
a pay-as-you-go model? Financial sustainability over the long term is a crit-
ical factor in analysis.
 Basics of Online Course Design  19

There is a caveat in this section on analysis of funding and finances. In

the beginning, online education was seen by some as a “cash cow”: massive
courses created once and deployed to droves of students, with little to no
instructional staffing. Indeed, once the content was created by an expert, the
course—or so it was imagined—could be handed off to teaching assistants or
other “cost-effective” instructional staff who would handle 40–50 students
per section or, at least, multiple sections with 10–20 students in each one.
MOOCs, of course, emerged as the wild exaggeration of such a configura-
tion with potentially hundreds, if not thousands, of students receiving little
to no ongoing faculty oversight or input thanks to online materials, auto-
mated feedback, and student–student learning communities. As the ADFL
(2014) statement quoted above warns, online teaching and learning is not a
cost saving measure. See Chapter 5 for a review of the research on optimal
online class size.
A major pitfall to avoid, then, is having cost savings or increased tuition rev-
enue as the primary impetus for creating an online language program. If finan-
cial gains are the main goal, then there is a danger of engaging in practices that
are not optimal for successful online delivery, such as using teaching assistants
and adjunct faculty who have not received adequate professional development
in online course delivery, instructional technologies, or both. There is also the
temptation to use canned, one-size-fits-all courseware, which will not result in
engaging, effective language learning.
Lastly, sometimes a single module may be created by a lone instructor as
part of a face-to-face, hybrid/blended, or flipped classroom. Over time more
modules may emerge until such time as all together they could be gathered
into a whole course curriculum. Even if a program develops like this over
time, the transition into an entirely online venue and the inclusion of all
course elements to support learning at a distance would have to be identified
through a thorough analysis.

How Supportive Are the Administrators, Supervisors,

and Colleagues?
Connected to the question of funding is that of philosophical and pedagogical
support.When colleagues and supervisors work against an online project, their
foot-dragging and roadblocks may end up scuttling a worthwhile endeavor,
even once it has been created and is operational. At one institution, two
nationally recognized online educators saw their online courses shut down
because their immediate supervisors did not believe that first- and second-year
language courses could be delivered online, despite funding and support from
20  Basics of Online Course Design

the provost and president. Elsewhere, the online programs and courses will
die if other faculty are not ready to take over should the creator leave or be
reassigned. Chapter 4 highlights professional development opportunities that
can help sustain online language teaching and learning in this latter instance.
In addition to having a supportive environment, one must consider how
realistic expectations are at various levels of administration. Will enough time,
personnel, and general support be accorded for the course design, develop-
ment, and delivery? In a series of responses to design questions over three
years, the BOLDD Survey (Murphy-Judy & Johnshoy, 2017) has shown:

●● most institutions expect an online course to be designed and developed in

a three- to four-month period and be ready to deploy after only a summer
or a semester of analysis, design, and development;
●● often there is little to no remuneration for the program creator (if that
person is faculty);
●● the program creator is afforded little to no professional development for
this work.

Across all three years of the survey, the picture of a significant lack of insti-
tutional support of the most elemental kind has become apparent. Part and
parcel of the question of institutional support is the answer to the question,
“What will be the professional benefits and rewards, if any, for an individual
or team that creates and develops such a program?” If there are no benefits,
if online course creation does not factor into annual evaluations, promo-
tions, or raises, then most likely it is not really valued by the institution.
Determining if the heavy workload and responsibilities involved in creating
and deploying an online program provide a sufficient return on investment
for designers and instructors is critical. If faculty members are asked to take
on a challenging task, such as designing and developing an online program,
course, or even a module, which is a section of an online course, then they
should get the specifics of the compensation and the weight (in terms of
course load, amount of time involved, etc.) in writing, lest the current winds
change direction.

What Are the Organizational or Institutional Constraints

and Time Factors?
Constraints take the form of time factors, institutional structures and stric-
tures (e.g., learning management systems, technology support, faculty loads,
reporting hierarchies, etc.), and accreditation. The time allotted to design and
 Basics of Online Course Design  21

develop an online course should be counted as an institutional constraint. It

should also be factored into the supervision and evaluation of the project team.
Its members should propose realistic timelines, keeping firmly in mind that
technology-dependent projects often take longer and cost more than expected.
Another critical time factor is that of the length or term of the course.
Must it correspond to traditional, brick-and-mortar course time frames for
logistical, academic, or other reasons? Will the online program be expected
to set up one or more time frames? If so, a whole host of questions and issues
will arise, most justifiably centered on the learner (see below). Will there be a
single, fixed time frame; will it be self-paced; or will there be variability, such
as the UMGC program that was discussed previously? Even if self-paced, stu-
dents and faculty need a time constraint of some sort. Will the course offer
rolling start and finish dates? How will the online course interface with tra-
ditional, brick-and-mortar language courses and programs for courses offered
in both traditional and online formats in the same school or department? If
a major impetus in the delineation and integration of an online curriculum
is to improve and individualize language learning by implementing emer-
ging technologies and innovative approaches and practices, now is the time to
rethink and articulate a new pedagogy. The BOLDD Survey has shown, how-
ever, that most online providers are expected to adhere to the time constraints
and curricula of existing on-campus language classes, rather than adopting
time frames and learning opportunities afforded by online learning. For more
information on considering time and time constraints for online, blended and
traditional courses, see Bates (2019) in the recommended reading section at
the end of this chapter. Further analysis of curricula and course content is
addressed below, under “Content.”
Institutional factors may include who is expected to design the course and
who will teach it. Such issues arise in great measure from whomever oversees
the project institutionally. If there is time and funding for instructional design-
ers, technologists, and faculty to work together, chances are better that a robust,
successful program will emerge. In a perfect world, all three would bring their
expertise to the table. However, in the real world, faculty members who create
such programs or courses are often expected to have the requisite instruc-
tional design and technology skills to build it entirely themselves. The OLI at
Carnegie Mellon University, with significant outside funding, benefited from
rich human resources. Few institutions responding to the BOLDD Survey,
however, noted such resources and collaborative teams. Online language
learning (OLL) tends to be initiated by a single faculty member who functions
as designer, developer, and instructor.
22  Basics of Online Course Design

Connected to the issue of human resources are the institutional expecta-

tions of the instructor in terms of number of students, number of classes, hours
of student-teacher engagement, office hours, homework/correcting/grading
time, contact with parents (if K-12), amount of responsibility for course revi-
sions and updates, and the like. Online teaching is known to be time intensive
in the language field (MLA, 2013). Unless the time to design, develop, and
deliver is factored in, undue stress and discontent, if not failure, may ensue.
Personnel tasked with creating the online language program or course must
be aware of the rules and regulations that will impact its design and delivery.
Some schools will have departmental or college-level parameters for eLearn-
ing, others operate at a higher level, in the provost’s office or through an office
of online education. Various states in the United States have regulations for sec-
ondary and postsecondary online teaching and learning, but federal legislation
implementation has once again been delayed (Downs, 2018). Since eLearning
by its very nature crosses local, state, and national borders, the online education
team must abide by the regulations that govern online education in their target
markets. The UMGC case demonstrated this kind of forethought during the
design phase by recognizing the requirements of its military and diplomatic
student populations and thus creating asynchronous courses in response to
their needs and constraints. At colleges and universities in the United States,
accrediting bodies like the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools
(SACS) (1997/2012; 2016), the Southern Region Education Board (SREB)
(2012), the Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions (C-RAC) (2011),
the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) (2018),
and the National Council of State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements
(NC-SARA) (2019) also provide regulations for online course delivery.
Accreditation for distance education in the United States is comprehen-
sively addressed through the Distance Education Accreditating Commission
(DEAC) (n.d.).
Finally, in this discussion of institutional constraints, one would be remiss
not to address what may be seen as its opposite: openness. It is conceivable for
online courses to be entirely free and open. Many institutions support the use
of open educational resources (OER), which are materials and resources that
may be shared, transformed, and/or redistributed without infringing on any
copyright laws. The OER philosophy underlies the operations of many mas-
sively open online courses; however, few high-quality language MOOCs exist
to date. Moreover, recently EdX, one of the largest and best-known MOOC
providers, announced its conversion into a for-profit venture (McKenzie, 2018).
Several others also charge for some courses, especially where course credit
 Basics of Online Course Design  23

is involved. To date, few studies have examined MOOC effectiveness in

language learning environments, and it is unclear whether MOOCs can
provide the level of interaction that is necessary for successful language
learning. Still, China has seen an extraordinary rise in its number of
MOOCs. Some are state supported and must obey educational policies
and regulations to gain national recognition. Notably, languages rank as the
fifth largest subject area of the 3,000 nationally recognized courses in 2020
(Ma, 2019). India, too, has thousands of MOOCs. Its National Ministry
of Education has accredited the Study Webs of Active-Learning for Young
Aspiring Minds (SWAYAM) courses in French, German, Japanese, Russian,
Sanskrit, and Spanish (Patra, 2019). Designing for openness adds another
layer of questions and considerations to the analysis phase of the ADDIE
process. If creating MOOCs for China or India, state regulations and
registries will have to be navigated.

Who Else Is Offering Similar Online Education?

Recognizing the competition serves several functions: first, it is important to
examine the cost, flexibility, reputation, accessibility, credentialing, etc. of com-
petitor programs. Second, it provides a view of reasonable costs, time frames,
standards, criteria, and the like in the current market. Third, it offers models
and options for the developer or project team to consider. The authors always
recommend that faculty looking to teach languages online first take one or
more online language courses themselves; the same advice applies to project
design and development teams.

Technology and Media Analysis

A learning management system is the software used for the administration,
documentation, tracking, reporting, and delivery of educational content. It
is where courses, whether online or traditional, house many, if not all, the
learning documents for their learners. In an online venue, the learning man-
agement system (LMS) plays a central role for learners and faculty alike.

Which LMS or Other Base Will Serve as the Learning Platform?

Most educational enterprises use an LMS like Google Classroom, Blackboard,
Moodle, D2L Brightspace, Canvas, or Edmodo. With the rise of MOOCs
around 2010, consortia and proprietary systems emerged like Coursera,
edX, FUN, FutureLearn, Miríada X, OpenClassrooms among the top providers.
Choosing which platform to use may fall to the design team or it may be
24  Basics of Online Course Design

imposed by institutional decision makers. Some schools have selected a given

platform (e.g., Moodle or Canvas) while the rest of campus uses another LMS
like Blackboard. The decision of platform should optimally be determined
during the analysis phase. Due to its pivotal role in the analysis phase, discus-
sions and explorations with school leaders in instructional technology and
more broadly with those in information technology at one’s institution should
be undertaken early in the process.

Which Technological Resources beyond the LMS Are

Available to Designers, Instructors, and Learners?
Most LMSs offer a variety of add-on tools beneficial to language learning, such
as tools that can allow a voice discussion board (e.g., VoiceThread) and tools
that allow for online synchronous meetings (e.g., Zoom or Communicate®).
See more about these tools in Chapters 2 and 3. Some institutions grant LMS
access to Hoonuit (formerly Atomic Learning and Versifit Technologies) or
LinkedIn Learning (formerly Lynda.com), two electronic warehouses for
digital instruction, professional development, and skill enhancement. These
resources are very valuable for online students who may need training on a
particular tool or application and they can be linked into an online course to
support student learning as needed.
Whoever designs a new online learning program needs to discover current
apps and technologies as well as stay abreast of emerging ones that may prove to
be powerful assets in 21st century language learning. This varies from language
to language, especially where second language (L2) phonological and/or writ-
ing systems significantly differ from those of the first language (L1). Regardless
of the funding source for tools, choosing the right ones is paramount. Online
course developers can also consult with colleagues who are instructional tech-
nology experts, both on campus and in their communities of practice. With
new technologies and media emerging constantly, one needs to stay abreast of
exciting and effective new ways to provide language learning online (Blake,
2010, 2011). In addition, there may be constraints stemming from privacy and
accessibility laws, institutional policies, and/or issues of availability, security, or
learner access. The universal design for learning (UDL)—which ensures that
students with exceptional needs, such as visual or hearing impairment—easily
accommodates to the online venue (Rose, Meyer, Strangman, & Rappolt,
2002). One needs to discover the usability and constraints of all factors under
consideration for the proposed program or course such as the LMS, social
media, software packages, publisher materials, apps, etc. An important question
is whether the organization creating the online language course abides by the
 Basics of Online Course Design  25

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). When followed during the

design process, the WCAG ensure that the online course includes strategies,
resources, and standards that make it accessible to people with disabilities.

To What Extent Will Mobile Access Be Important to the Course?

When BOLDD first started offering workshops on online language design
and delivery, smartphones and tablets were just entering the educational scene.
Now they are ubiquitous. Many learners today live by their smartphones. It is
forecast that, “Mobile data traffic will grow at a compound annual growth rate
(CAGR) of 47 percent from 2016 to 2021, reaching 49.0 exabytes per month
by 2021” with an exabyte equaling one billion gigabytes (Cisco, 2019, p. 0). By
2021, there will be more mobile devices than people on the planet, although
this does not mean everyone will own one. Any viable online program needs
to consider the role of mobile delivery in response to the anytime, anywhere
expectations of today’s students. However, certain materials and resources for
the course, such as some publisher-delivered ones, may require using a com-
puter. The analysis questions below on learners, technologies, and content will
expand on critical issues in mobile access and engagement.

Learner Analysis
Learners and their learning are the driving force behind teaching, whether
face-to-face, hybrid, or online. In building a distance language learning course
or entire program, designers consider student age, cognitive development,
social and economic status, career aspirations, location, and reasons for taking
languages online.

Who Will Be the Online Students?

In any given online course, there may be students from regular and home
schools, community colleges, and other colleges and universities. The student
body may include those studying or interning abroad, retirees, businesspeople,
other faculty, even learners from other countries whose L1 is not that of the
country in which the course originates. Learner access to the minimum tech-
nology requirements, such as access to a computer and the Internet, has to be
taken into account. For students who lack access to the basic requirements, is
there access in their community at times convenient to their schedules? For
example, does their school or campus have a language lab or bank of comput-
ers? Do local libraries offer the needed computer facilities? It may seem ludi-
crous, but some students sign up for an online course lacking a computer and
26  Basics of Online Course Design

the ancillary components (headset, microphone, video camera, speakers, etc.).

Some may have only a cell phone, which they expect to suffice for completing
course assignments, assessments, and interactions. Indeed, Clinefelter, Aslanian,
and Magda (2019) report that 66% of online students want to use their mobile
devices to complete their work (p. 33). In addition to hardware, Internet access,
too, is crucial; yet, some lower-income students may lack WIFI access at home
or in their community. Students in rural areas may have no access to broadband
connections or the available Internet providers have prohibitively expensive data
plans and/or slow connectivity. Such potential limitations can be highly detri-
mental to student access and success so they must be considered.
Beyond financial and logistical issues, language learning online, especially
at the lower levels, often attracts learners with novice skills in the target
language and novice language learning strategies and know-how, often com-
pounded by a novice level in online learning and in instructional tech-
nologies in general. A thoughtful, broad assessment of target population
demographics, circumstances, and backgrounds will promote the design of
a healthy, successful program and suggest pathways and resources to differ-
entiate learing and support students with special needs. Despite the notion
that the current generation of students is technologically savvy, while indeed
they are with respect to some forms of social media, often they are not so
in the kinds of digital media and computer-mediated communication of an
educational environment. Moreover, Clinefelter et al. report that “One-third of
online college students are first-generation college students, and 13% have no
prior college experience” (2019, p. 18). If they enroll in an online language
course, they may well be at the novice level in postsecondary education as
well as in the language and in online learning. Finally, if the language course
is a requirement, there may also be a lack of engagement with or motivation
for learning a language. For this reason, the level of learner autonomy may
start out quite low. Appraisal of prospective learners and learning profiles
will lead to an appropriate design plan.

How Diverse Will the Online Learners Be?

The impact of race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, age, and/or disability
may be lessened in that an online environment often reduces visible differ-
ences, but systemic inequities may still persist. Educators must recognize and
value diversity to teach inclusively (Bonilla-Silva, 2006; Center for Applied
Special Technology [CAST], 2018a, 2018b). Other critical factors in learner
diversity include cultural background, proficiency level, study habits, and
perseverance or grit. Learning paths should always be differentiated; yet, how
 Basics of Online Course Design  27

best to do that and knowing which strategies in online learning will pro-
mote inclusive differentiation depends in part on knowing who the audi-
ence will be.
Access to the technologies, technology support, and tutoring support influ-
ence how best to bolster all learners, online and offline. It is especially impor-
tant to consider the needs of students with disabilities, finding ways to assure
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance and to address other spe-
cial learning and access needs. In the European Union, there is the European
Accessibility Act (Official Journal of the European Union, 2019). The 20 tips
for designing an accessible online course by Burgstahler (2018) will help in
analysis and in the upcoming design phase. More on UDL and ADA compli-
ance can be found in the discussion below on the design of compliant programs.
Designers from countries outside the United States and the European Union
should familiarize themselves with the regulations for their circumstances.
As part of the analysis of learner diversity, one should also probe when and
where learners will engage in learning. Will they be on-campus, off-campus,
at home, or at work? Will they encounter the course during set class hours,
in the evening or on the weekend, or during some other time frame of their
choosing? Will they access the course asynchronously, synchronously, or a mix
of both modes? Course scheduling and pacing, whether semester-based, with
rolling starts, or with flexible start and finish dates, must be examined with
regard to the learner population to design effectively.

Why Are Students Taking the Course?

Learner attitudes toward and motivations for taking an online course must
be considered, together with the institution’s mission, strategic planning,
and issues of accreditation. Many learners want an educational opportunity
that frees them from the space and time constraints of the brick-and-mortar
classroom. Some may have disabilities that make online education a better
fit. Others work full-time and are seeking a language course that fits their
schedule.
A false reason that can hamper online learning, however, arises from learner
misconceptions about online learning and the amount of learner autonomy
it will require of them. Some students sign up for an online language course
thinking incorrectly that it will entail only reading and writing, with minimal
speaking and listening involved. By analyzing learners’ reasons for taking the
course online, the eventual design can create course descriptions and a robust
learner orientation to foster good online learning habits and frames of mind
to help dispel counterproductive ones.
28  Basics of Online Course Design

What Kind of Community of Inquiry (COI) Will Be Best

for the Targeted Learners?
Presence is extremely important in the online environment. Teaching and
learning require human connectedness. Learners benefit from a sense of
community with the teacher and fellow learners as they move toward shared
learning goals. In the analysis phase, designers seek the best ways to foster a
sense of community and belonging for their targeted population. For one set,
it may revolve around the campus identity or a mascot. For another, it may
be the prestige of the institution. Yet another may seek an adult, professional
learning community through a local college. Or maybe the esprit de corps will
center around common social concerns. A strong sense of connectedness to
the content, to the teacher, and to their peers creates the type of COI needed
for successful online learning (Boettcher & Conrad, 2016).

Content Analysis
Early online language programs were limited in their pedagogical approach
by the LMS text-based interface. Today’s digital multimedia allow online
language educators to offer instruction across a full range of communicative
and interactive modes.

What Is the Philosophy, Standards, and Methodologies

for the Proposed Program or Course?
In the United States, most language professionals adhere to the American
Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) World-Readiness
Standards, with its 5 Cs: Communication, Cultures, Connections, Comparisons,
and Communities (National Standards Collaborative Board, 2015). In Europe
and elsewhere the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR)
for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment is used by language educa-
tors (Council of Europe, 2011). For English as a second language (ESL) in
the United States, there are the national World-Class Instructional Design
and Assessment (WIDA) English Language Development Standards (WIDA,
2012). Professional standards are addressed below under Design as well as
in Chapter 3.
Another essential element to be analyzed is the main approach that will
be used online. Communicative language teaching suits the online environ-
ment well. Strategies like project-based learning (PBL), active learning, and
cooperative and collaborative learning can be successfully integrated into a
 Basics of Online Course Design  29

communicative approach. Chapter 3 fleshes out ways to develop and integrate

communicative language teaching and learning into the online, blended, or
flipped environments.

What Is the Proficiency Level of the Content That Learners

Will Learn?
Instruction is the interplay between learners, instructors, and content. To ana-
lyze issues surrounding this interplay that take place in the L2, the designer or
the project team needs to roughly target the entry level of student proficiency.
In the case of an upper-level or content-based language course, for example
Advanced German Conversation or Chinese for Business, it will be the base-
line incoming proficiency level students need to engage in the course content
and activities. Language acquisition is not a lockstep, straight line, linear pro-
cess. Learners start and continue their language learning paths while displaying
a wide range of abilities, aptitudes, and experiences. Their starting levels may
be determined by previous coursework and grades, by placement testing, or
from standardized proficiency testing. How learner deficits in proficiency and
remediation of language skills will be tackled should also be addressed from
the very beginning. What kinds of scaffolding and differentiation will need to
be deployed to address disparities? Such questions must be asked and answered
whatever the mode of delivery. Yet, in the online venue, they may be harder
to discover and their possible existence needs to be proactively prepared for.
Eventually, the designer or team must also explore and decide at which degree
of proficiency the final learning targets will be set.

Who Selects the Base Materials for Content Delivery?

With regard to teaching and learning materials, the designer or team scopes
out the choice of the materials, that is, the textbook (if there will be one),
online resources, such as workbooks and activities, the tools to support and
scaffold language learning, and applications to engage learners in communi-
cative interactivity. The institutional analysis will discover who ultimately has
control over these choices: the administration or central office, the faculty,
the online team, or outside consultants. It will be important to determine
which materials will differ from corresponding on-campus course offerings.
The BOLDD Survey shows most of the responding institutions use essen-
tially the same course materials for online and traditional language courses
even though the online environment could (and should!) promote innovative,
connected learning opportunities.Yet, many language programs are sequenced
30  Basics of Online Course Design

so students can move between traditional and online courses seamlessly and
not incur additional textbook costs.These decisions must be faced early in the
process of creating an online program.

To What Extent Will the Online Course Articulate with Other

Language Curricula?
Articulation with the traditional language curricula may determine several
aspects of content and approach in the online program or course. If the pro-
ject is to create modules for flipped or hybrid courses, the question is moot.
At the course level, will the course stay in sync with on-campus courses so
learners can move smoothly between one and the other? For some programs,
the online program segregates its learners from traditional, brick-and-mortar
language courses, as is the case of the ASU online courses mentioned above.
Other programs keep their learners in lockstep, which enables the students to
move fluidly between on-campus and online courses as suits their needs.

Instructional Staff ing Analysis

Analysis of instructional staffing goes beyond identifying who will teach the
course. While the answer is evident in the traditional, brick-and-mortar class,
it is not as clear online.

Who Will Teach the Online Course Now and in the Future?
Many educators who design online courses also teach them.Yet, for the sake
of sustainability, programs need to be built so that faculty with proper train-
ing in online instruction will be hired. Determining if current faculty have
the background and experience is crucial to launching and sustaining the
project. If there are qualified, local instructional staff, there is less concern.
If, however, the teaching corps will consist of adjunct or contingent faculty,
and/or graduate teaching assistants, then the analysis phase needs to explore
the amount of training, preparation, and guidance needed well before the
program or course launches.

How Will the Instructional Staff Get Selected, Trained,

and Evaluated?
Often, the designer plays no part in who is selected. Ideally, instructors with
technology training, or better yet, those with experience in computer-assisted
language learning and knowledge of online language pedagogy would be
hired (see Chapter 3). Faculty, tutors, or assistants without such qualifications
 Basics of Online Course Design  31

will need training and/or mentoring. The analysis phase should indicate if
a training program is called for and its time frame (see Chapter 4 for more
on professional development). Job postings for online positions as well as
end-of-course teacher evaluations must also be thought about. If the right
questions about instructional staffing, selection, training, and evaluation are
thoroughly discussed and asked, the design phase sets up appropriate response
mechanisms.This is also when questions should arise about criteria for eval-
uation. Fortunately, a growing body of research and literature on teacher
education for online language learning meets that need. See Chapter 5 for a
review of the relevant research on online language teaching and learning.

Who Besides the Teacher of Record Will Be Available

as Instructional Staff and at What Cost?
The BOLDD survey data correlated learner success online with having more
than one instructional staff member per course. In addition to the instructor of
record, online programs ought to investigate tutors (local or online, native or
non-native, paid or unpaid), peer conversation partners (e.g., international stu-
dents on campus, upper-level students, teletandem exchange partners), graders,
teaching assistants, or some combination of these. The design team needs to
find out what staffing resources are available for their program. The cost of
such instructional staffing also has to be calculated and included in the cost
analysis. The less obvious cost—that of the instructional faculty’s time and
effort in the design, development, and delivery of the online course—should
also figure into this analysis.Teaching online takes more time per student gen-
erally than traditional, on-campus courses (Kenny & Fluck, 2017; MLA, 2013).
If the initiating faculty member is also expected to guide and support ancillary
teaching staff (graders, mentors, coaches), that, too, must be accounted for in
terms of faculty time and compensation.

Evaluation of the Analysis Phase

Given the complexity and variety of any online program or course creation,
its analysis phase should reflect breadth and depth. The questions provided
above probe the major functions and roles in the design, development, and
deployment of an online language program.They are not, however, exhaustive.
A question that should always be kept in mind throughout the analysis pro-
cess is, “What else do we need to know, given our circumstances and situation
and those of the learners?” Even the analysis phase warrants an evaluation
of whether it has done its job. Moreover, as the rest of the ADDIE process
32  Basics of Online Course Design

unfolds, the project team may need to engage in further analysis or revisit
given questions and responses should new circumstances warrant it. This is
especially the case as new technologies and media emerge, as institutions make
important changes, as faculty come and go, and, of course, as students evolve
with the times.
Here is a checklist that covers the most important aspects to be analyzed:

⬜⬜ The initial impetus and sustaining reason(s) for offering this online
language course or program (institutional and programmatic) are fully
recognized.
⬜⬜ The person(s) or unit(s) that support or may impede the project have been
identified.
⬜⬜ The funding source(s) to create and to sustain the course or program are clear.
⬜⬜ The target learner population (characteristics, geographic dispersion,
technologies available to them, their goals) is defined.
⬜⬜ The place of the online course or program within other courses and pro-
grams is articulated.
⬜⬜ Technologies and resources available to the project team for project crea-
tion and delivery are listed.
⬜⬜ The timeframe for the project is clear and feasible.
⬜⬜ Staffing, including support and professional development for designers,
instructors, assistants, and evaluators is arranged or if needed, is being
planned.
⬜⬜ External constraints, including accessibility, professional standards, accredi-
tation, and local/state/national regulations are recognized and shared with
the whole project team.

Design
Analysis is followed by the “D” of design. All the parts of ADDIE are essential,
but good design is the bedrock upon which the course rests. Based on answers
and considerations spelled out during the analysis phase, the designer or design
team sets to work. The design phase produces a coherent structure and frame-
work within which units, modules, tasks, assignments, and assessments, as well
as support documents, resources, and support mechanisms, will be developed.
As already noted, effective action begins the end goal in mind (Covey, 1989).
In the online language environment, the element of distance, with its impact
on learners and learning, must remain central to planning. It helps to cre-
ate a design map or wireframe for the whole course, adding in and showing
 Basics of Online Course Design  33

connections between all the various components as they emerge during the
design process. Such mapping helps the project team and any other stakehold-
ers to see the big picture at all times. Moreover, a version of the mapping can
be used, as will be explained below, as both an orientation and a navigation
tool for the learners.
The distance factor weighs especially heavily in the online language course.
Specific to language learning, learning goals and expected outcomes are
generally articulated in proficiency terms (ACTFL, WIDA, or CEFR scales)
and measured by performance indicators—what the learners can do—across
the three modes of communication (interpretive, interpersonal, presenta-
tional) according to ACTFL and the National Council of State Supervisors
for Foreign Languages (NCSSFL), across the four skills (reading, writing,
listening, and speaking) for WIDA, and across the three activities (reception,
production, interaction) according to Council of Europe’s CEFR. Depending
on the program or the course, there may be additional instructional goals
(e.g., graduate reading proficiency; medical, legal, or business certifica-
tion; digital literacy; civic or community engagement, etc.). Still, linguistic
improvement and increased intercultural awareness always factor into the
language curriculum. Goals are further divided into smaller learning object-
ives that, taken together, should move the learner along pathways toward the
expected learning outcomes. The new Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy provides
a hierarchy of skill and knowledge development within a suite of cogni-
tive processes and digital modalities across all disciplines (Anderson et al.,
2001; Armstrong, 2016; Sneed, 2016). This new version is especially useful
for thinking about and planning for digital learning. Moreover, the active
verbs in the taxonomy integrate well with the NCSSFL-ACTFL Can-Do
Statements (2017) and WIDA Can Do Descriptors (2016), thus helping
guide proficiency goal setting. In language education, performance across
the three modes of communication (for world languages) or across the four
skills (for ESL) allows the instructional designer to focus on the interplay
and integration of all three modes such that learners increase their profi-
ciency in all four skills at the same time as their intercultural competency.
Chapters 2 and 3 delve more deeply into these areas.

Learning Platform for Course Delivery

Most educational organizations already have an LMS platform like Blackboard,
Canvas, D2L Brightspace, Moodle, Sakai, Angel, or Google Classroom for
face-to-face, hybrid, and online teaching and learning. There are instances,
34  Basics of Online Course Design

5-year Historical LMS Breakdown

by Region as Percentage of Total
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50% ANGEL
40% Blackboard Learn
Instructure Canvas
30%
D2L Brightspace
20% Moodle
10% Sakai
Other
0%
20 4
20 5
20 6
17
18

20 4
15

20 6
20 7
18

20 4
15

20 6
17
18

20 4
20 5
16

20 7
18
1
1
1

1
1

1
1

1
20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
20
www.edutechnica.com
S

lia
ad
U

ra
n

st
Ca

Au

Figure 1.2  5-year historical LMS breakdown by region as percentage of total.

Graphic created by Edutechnica.com, 2018. CC BY SA 4.0.

however, where the online education division may adopt a different one.
Besides the major platforms listed, other types of LMS solutions exist such as
WordPress with a plugin like LearnDash to manage, coordinate, and develop
the online learning site. Figure 1.2 shows the relative size of the market share
from 2014–2018 in higher education institutions’ LMSs in the United States,
Canada, United Kingdom, and Australia. It is noteworthy that in 2019, Canvas
has pulled ahead of Blackboard in the market share in higher education in the
United States (Edutechnica, 2019).
The online magazine, eLearning Industry, offers a directory of nearly 400 LMS
options, with a host of institutional types, subscriptions, and various affordances,
or ways that the LMS can be used. In addition, many LMSs offer free trials.Yet,
some readers may plan to run their own online school, like the Rapp brothers’
Spanish MOOC some ten years ago. In this instance, it will take time and effort
to research and choose the best platform for the type of program or course that
is anticipated. One other delivery platform to consider is an entirely mobile
one. As discussed below, the demand for mobile eLearning is steadily increasing.
There are even some LMSs that offer only a mobile platform.
In the less frequent instance, where the designer or team also chooses the
learning platform, it should be noted that larger systems, like Blackboard and
Canvas, are expensive and often the cost per student exceeds $1000. Even if one
opts for Moodle, Edmodo, or WordPress (LearnDash), which offer ostensibly free
open-source learning platforms, they will likely require a great deal of tailoring
and setup, which are time-consuming. This is typically the work of information
 Basics of Online Course Design  35

technology (IT) staff that usually exceeds the know-how of faculty and instruc-
tional designers. The Moodle site offers a list of support companies that—for
a fee—provide such expertise. Moodle, Edmodo, Google, and LearnDash (the
WordPress solution) also have pricing options for services beyond the free license.
The other important factor in setting up one’s own LMS is hosting, which would
necessitate the purchase of a domain name and delivering online learning at scale,
which precludes a basement server or an inexpensive cloud option.

Google’s Open Online Education

Although relatively new, the Google Open Online Education platform has
already made inroads into K-12 schools thanks to Google Classroom. It also
attracts start-ups and do-it-yourselfers. It is open and free but can be custom
tailored for a price.
Since this book on online language design, development, and delivery
is global in context, it should be noted that Google is generally banned in
China. Although it would be illegal, the ban can be circumvented through
virtual private networks (VPN). For an online educational program, it would
be ill-advised to do so. Chinese companies have created programs that replace
most of the banned functions. Elsewhere, in Crimea, Cuba, Iran, North Korea,
Sudan, and Syria, Google limits some of its offerings. Still, the Google reach is
extensive and otherwise globally viable. The G Suite for Education houses its
latest cloud-based and scalable educational services like Mail, Calendar, Drive
(with Docs, Sheets, Slides, etc.), Sites, Forms, Meets, Jamboard, Vault, and
Classroom. See Table 1.1 for more detail on selected Google apps and services
useful in online language environments.

Mobile Platforms
Within the enormous growth in online education worldwide, a fair share
comes from mobile learning. Clement (2020) in a Statistica report shows that
already 51% of web page views in the world are via mobile devices other
than tablets; the percentage rises to over 65% in Asia and just under 60% in
Africa and by 2020, smartphone user numbers will increase to just under
3 billion people (p. 0). The study, “Online College Students 2019” (Clinefelter
et al., 2019) underscores that a majority of online students (56%) use their
mobile devices for learning and two-thirds expect their courses to be deliv-
erable on those devices (p. 32). Moreover, the younger generation, those
under 45, want their learning experience to look and feel like the apps they
routinely use on their phones. Thus, an LMS or learning platform that ports
well to mobile devices, especially smartphones, is optimal.
36  Basics of Online Course Design

Table 1.1  Selected Google products for online language environments.

Google Arts and Culture An online platform giving access to high-resolution

reproductions of art from partner museums.
Google Drive apps (included Applications that rival costly utilities and productivity
in the G Suite for Education): tools from Microsoft, Adobe, Apple, and other
Docs, Sheets, Slides companies for academic work in the 21st century.
Google Earth A computer program that gives a 3D representation of
Earth from satellite imagery that allows users to
zoom in on locations. Information can be attached to
locations. Many embedded lessons already exist like
the Louvre and ancient Rome.
Google Expeditions Over 900 AR and over 100 VR lessons. Through the
Cardboard viewer (or other 3D goggles) and
Cardboard Camera, classes can explore 360° views of
people, places, and things.
Google Meet A communication product like Skype or other video
chat programs, with integrated messenger services
and Google Talk.
Google Reader Aggregating application and site to gather and annotate
from the web.
Google Scholar An open web search engine that scours the full text or
metadata of scholarly publications.
Google Translate A multilingual machine translation service that can be
used as a website interface, as a mobile, or
programmed as an application interface.
Google Voice Voice telephone service over Internet protocol (VoIP)
with a “real” phone number that takes messages and
transfer calls to and from other phones.

Any number of learning platforms and apps either have a mobile inter-
face or can operate entirely in a mobile mode. During the design phase, the
importance of mobile delivery should be determined. During development,
however, the important step is to try out various pages across different plat-
forms: iOS, Android, Huawei’s Hongmeng OS, and, of course, any new ones
that will emerge on the market from here on out. It may be the case that only
certain parts of a lesson can be ported over to a mobile device. Learners must
be made aware, for example, that proctored testing cannot be conducted via
their phones. Still, almost all other apps (VoiceThread, publisher supersites,
videos, LMSs) are available in mobile versions. Some of the desktop/laptop
bells and whistles may be lacking, but much is available. In fact, there are sev-
eral mobile-first LMSs, like Edvance 360, Kannu, and It’s Learning, which (as
is increasingly a business practice) start with a cloud-based mobile version that
later is adapted to a desktop version. A useful infographic from eLearning
 Basics of Online Course Design  37

Infographics (2019) on mobile eLearning is linked in the e-resources. If the

project team plans to create a program or course that is primarily mobile, it
will be important to review Stockwell and Hubbard’s ten principles for mobile
language learning (2013, pp. 8–10).
However, a smartphone alone rarely suffices for delivery of an entirely online
language course. While students should be able to access many if not most
materials on their mobile devices, where they cannot or will be limited in their
learning, students should be notified in the course overview and in the spe-
cific module that mobile access and interactivity is limited or impossible. Social
media on phones and tablets can, however, open up a wide range of interpretive,
interpersonal, and even presentational opportunities to students, providing real-
world engagement in the communities, connections, comparisons, and cultures
of the L2. Still, mobile delivery of a language lesson needs to be accompanied
by learner development: the students must be coached to pay attention to the
lesson and interaction. Using a phone is perceived by learners as more personal
than academic. Students may require scaffolding to allow optimal use of the
technology as a tool of online language learning (Stockwell & Hubbard, 2013).
Finally, it is important to make sure that as the materials are produced, they can
be viewed on desktops, laptops, tablets, and mobile phones, making sure that the
interface is clear, navigable, and accessible across whichever devices will be allowed.

Design Issues Specif ic to Languages

Online language instruction faces special design issues because language is both
the content and the means of instruction. Ninety percent of instruction should
be delivered in the target language (ACTFL, 2017). Recent work in neurosci-
ence shows that code switching between languages (L1–L2) may increase cogni-
tive load, especially for novice and intermediate language learners. Nonetheless,
short, targeted use of the L1 can free up valuable learning time for practicing
and engaging in the target language. Cook (2001) proposes four viable rea-
sons for using the L1 in language lessons: efficiency, learning, naturalness, and
external reference. Developing video tutorials to explain the online learning
interface is an example of efficiency. It may be faster and easier for learners to
grasp how to use course interface if the instructions are in L1. Moreover, user
guides may already exist in one’s institution or be provided by a publisher or an
app company, which would relieve the designers and developers from that task.
Learners already struggling with the “foreignness” of an L2 may find
themselves also facing a “foreign” learning environment in the online venue.
A faulty or confusing online lesson can be fixed, but a confusing overall design
38  Basics of Online Course Design

or one lacking a consistent interface with clear navigation is equally alienating

for students. The on-campus classroom allows faculty to use all their senses
in perceiving student reactions. Teachers can incorporate current events and
campus happenings in the moment in a live class. This may happen less fre-
quently in asynchronous online classes.Then again, instructors can use weekly
communications to add in such immediacy and of course, faculty and students
may interact occasionally synchronously to exchange news.
Specific to language learning in the current educational context in the
United States, learning goals are determined and articulated in the World-
Readiness Standards for Learning Languages (National Standards Collaborative
Board, 2015) and by the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines (ACTFL, 2012)
for speaking, writing, listening, and reading for world languages and by
the WIDA Amplification of the English Language Development Standards
Kindergarten–Grade 12 (WIDA, 2012) for ESL. The following graphic from
the Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA), until
recently one of the federally funded Language Resource Centers (LRCs), shows
the constant interactions among standards, instructional goals, assessments, and
learning activities (Figure 1.3). For those educators in the K-12 arena, it includes
a slot for the Common Core standards from the United States.
Outside the United States, educators may opt to explore the Common
European Framework of Reference (CEFR) Standards for Languages: Learning,
Teaching, and Assessment and its European Language Portfolio (ELP). In this
guide, however, the authors refer primarily to the ACTFL and WIDA guidelines.
Beginning as early as 2003, in line with research on the importance of learner
portfolio assessment and reflection and with a successful model of the ELP, various
members of NCSSFL started drafting their own version of a language learning
portfolio, called LinguaFolio. An online version arose after five years of testing the
pencil-and-paper version, thanks to the Center for Advanced Studies in Second
Language Studies (CASLS) and the National Foreign Language Center (NFLC),
both federally funded Language Resource Centers (LRCs). In 2017, NCSSFL
and ACTFL revised the Can-Do Statements to include intercultural competen-
cies. Currently, CASLS offers LinguaFolio Online (LFO) and a mobile version.
LinguaFolio organizes learning goals in line with three modes of
communication:

●● Interpretive: Learners understand, interpret, and analyze what is heard,

read, or viewed on a variety of topics.
●● Interpersonal: Learners interact and negotiate meaning in spoken, signed, or
written conversations to share information, reactions, feelings, and opinions.
 Basics of Online Course Design  39

Figure 1.3  Flowchart for developing an IPA created for Create a Standards-Based Integrated
Performance Assessment Unit Step-by-Step at the Center for Advanced Research on
Language Acquisition (CARLA) at the University of Minnesota (Clementi, n.d.).
Graphic used with permission.

●● Presentational: Learners present information, concepts, and ideas to

inform, explain, persuade, and narrate on a variety of topics using appro-
priate media and adapting to various audiences of listeners, readers, or
viewers (NCSSFL-ACTFL, 2017).

Through the ePortfolio system of LinguaFolio, curriculum designers and

faculty are able to articulate nationally valid, level-appropriate learning goals
and objectives for a unit or course. LinguaFolio allows educators to “design
curriculum and units based on Benchmarks and Indicators and provide
40  Basics of Online Course Design

professional learning for educators on how to move learners up the profi-

ciency levels. Educators collaborate to design end-of-unit or end-of-course
assessments to provide evidence of learners independently and consistently
demonstrating the targeted level of proficiency” (NCSSFL-ACTFL, 2017).
The instructor’s guide available on the CASLS LFO site details how to use
backward design (see below) to plan a whole course as well as units within
that course.
An essential feature of LinguaFolio involves assessment. In addition to
offering its unit planning guide, it helps curriculum designers create the final
course or unit assessment based on an essential concept or question, and then,
with the end firmly in mind, backward engineer all the necessary learning
targets along with their integrated performance assessments (a way of cycling
through all three modes, assessing learner outcomes) toward realizing the pro-
ficiency goals, along with any scaffolding, practice, assignments, and homework
needed to support, scaffold, and promote student learning.  As a result, learners
finish with a reflection on their own learning. Several studies have shown
the power of such reflection on student autonomy and success (Hromalik &
Koszalka, 2018; Reinders & White, 2016; Ribbe & Bezanilla, 2013; Zhong,
2018; Ziegler & Moeller, 2012). How the Can-Do Statements and proficiency
goal setting aligns with communicative language teaching is fully detailed in
Chapter 3.
Although it does not address language education, Bates’ discussion
of learning time frames does pertain to online language courses (2019).
He states that rather than trying to equate the number of hours for an
online course with a traditional classroom’s contact and homework hours,
the equivalence should arise from the work assigned to achieve the same
“notional” learning, which in language circles is determined by what learn-
ers “Can-Do.” By creating online, blended, and flipped courses that deliver
the same notional-functional (i.e., proficiency-based learning) outcomes as
brick-and-mortar courses, there will be no difference in the quality of the
education. Nevertheless, the designers need to specify a target of total time
to be spent on a course by an average student. The total study time for a
lesson or module includes the structured learning of the course content
plus the time for activities, interactions, and tasks to practice and assess the
learning targets. The designer or design team should take care not to under-
estimate the amount of time it will take students to complete their lessons
and modules online. Getting an outside perspective on the student work-
load, often part of the work of an instructional designer, can avoid overbur-
dening students with excessive workloads (Bates, 2019).
 Basics of Online Course Design  41

Backward Design
The authors of this book subscribe to the backward design approach. It is also
referred to in a more learner-centric fashion as “Understanding by Design”
(UbD). It has three major steps: (1) begin by articulating the learning out-
comes, that is, what learners will be able to do at the end of the learning expe-
rience in proficiency terms; (2) create learning assessments and assignments
that will provide evidence of the level of attainment of the learning outcomes;
and, (3) sequence and scaffold instructional materials, interactions, and activ-
ities to ensure successful progress toward being able to express what has been
learned. OLL goals and expected learning outcomes are often determined by
a language department or school system. They are balanced with the institu-
tional realities discovered during the analysis phase. In particular, in the online
language learning environment, the distance factor permeates all thinking and
planning about the goals, the evidence of student learning, and the necessary
steps to lead students to success (Wiggins et al., 2005). Figure 1.4 encapsulates
the process:

Figure 1.4  The backward design process based on Wiggins & McTighe (2005).
CC BY SA 4.0.
42  Basics of Online Course Design

Cognitive approaches in second language acquisition (SLA) describe the

spiraling movement from novice-level proficiency through the highest, dis-
tinguished levels. Shrum and Glisan (2010) succinctly outline the pedagogical
process as being a top-down or backward design approach that can be used
for an entire program, a unit, or even a single lesson. They promote the use
of authentic texts determined by the current and targeted proficiency levels.
Goals are followed by organizing the learning objectives into a series of units
or modules, each with its own set of unit or module objectives, which can also
include Can-Do Statements for students to engage in goal setting and reflec-
tion. It is the nature of language acquisition that the learning goals should
overlap and repeat.The 2001 Bloom’s Taxonomy shown in Figure 1.5 provides
an incremental framework for knowledge, skill, and/or attitude attainment
within a suite of progressively developing cognitive processes (Anderson et al.,
2001). Project designers using backward design should align learning object-
ives with expected learning outcomes and make sure that learners have ade-
quate scaffolding to reach the targeted performance goals.
If world language educators choose to use the materials provided by the
CASLS LinguaFolio team, a comprehensive approach to backward design is
detailed in its teacher’s guide. Its power arises from starting with a concept, and
then elaborating performance goals across the three modes of communication
(interpretive, interpersonal, and presentational). The Can-Do Statements help

Figure 1.5  The new Bloom’s Taxonomy.

Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. CC BY 2.0, 2016.

 Basics of Online Course Design  43

learners set their own language learning goals, reflect on them, and think
critically about the unit concept through the lens of the target language
and culture (CASLS, 2017). Concepts like social justice, immigration,
change, time, relationships, identity, and collaboration drive the acquisition
of vocabulary, forms, and structures by having learners engage with the real
world in the target language. The rest of the guide breaks down the steps
of unit planning based on the overarching concept(s). Integration of the
NCSSFL-ACTFL Can-Do Statements into formative assessments gives
online course designers a solid, research-based structure for their instruc-
tion (NCSSFL-ACTFL, 2017). CARLA also offers numerous resources
for the backward design of units and their assessments. The graphic below
(Figure 1.6) from the Ohio Department of Education describes the pro-
cesses involved in world language backward design at the level of a the-
matic unit, but it is equally valid at the program or course level and it can
be easily adapted for ESL contexts.

Synchronous v. Asynchronous Models of Delivery

The type of delivery mode—synchronous, asynchronous, or a combination of
both—will have been explored and decided at the analysis phase. Synchronous
delivery occurs when the learners and instructor are co-present online at the
same time. Asynchronous learning assumes that learner(s) need not be present
simultaneously with any other persons in the learning environment. This is

Figure 1.6  B
 ackward design of a thematic unit created by the Ohio Department of Education (n.d.).
44  Basics of Online Course Design

often referred to as anytime/anyplace instruction. Analysis of the institu-

tional context and the learners will determine the best delivery mode. An
effective approach to classroom learning today is that of the flipped class-
room, where explicit instruction is offered asynchronously (e.g., as prepara-
tory modules prior to brick-and-mortar class meetings). For example, before
a session during which learners interact together in real time on a learning
opportunity like a jigsaw task, they will have watched an interactive video
that introduces and focuses their attention on the vocabulary and structures
they will need to use in the class session in order to communicate and exe-
cute in-class tasks. If the module includes synchronous class meetings, they
can be used to troubleshoot learner misconceptions and elicit learners’ ways
of conceptualizing new forms, processes, and understandings of prepared
materials. Flipped learning also emphasizes learner-learner and/or learn-
er-instructor activities that maximize communicative language learning
(for more on communicative language teaching and flipped approaches, see
Chapter 3). In the completely asynchronous setting, it may be much more
difficult to orchestrate learner-learner or learner-instructor dialogue in real
time, especially truly interpersonal oral interactions, during which learners
negotiate meaning. Chapter 2 provides more guidance on how to develop
modules with interactivity and Chapter 3 provides examples of online activ-
ities across all three modes of communication.

The Getting Started Module

Designing for learner success is critical to a good online course. Quality
Matters (QM), a national leader in good design and development of online
learning, makes the Getting Started module a requirement for effective
online courses in every discipline. Online language learners may be new
to the online learning environment and they may be unaware of strate-
gies for successful online learning to take place. Media images of learning
in bed, on the beach, surrounded by friends and pets—however great they
are as marketing ploys—give learners a distorted view of online learning
and, importantly, a skewed perspective of the focus, attention, planning, and
persistence that it entails. Today’s learners prefer clean, simple text, visu-
als, videos, and game-like instructions and task directions over dense text
(Burns, 2019). Using visuals like screenshots, video clips, interactive exer-
cises, and gaming options in the Getting Started module and orientation
materials enhances students’ ability and willingness to handle the distance
factor. Moreover, it primes the pump for using visual and interactive course
 Basics of Online Course Design  45

Figure 1.7  Screenshot of a getting started module for online Spanish on D2L’s Brightspace
platform.
D2L product screenshot reprinted with permission from D2L Corporation.

materials, which should also be as multimodal (engaging multiple senses),

active, and as engaging as possible. See Figure 1.7 for an example of a Getting
Started module that is clean and simple.
Online instruction should have redundancies with information located in
more than one area or with links to click back to previous pages or windows.
However, multiple or redundant links may confuse learners, especially those
who are linear thinkers. The course design map, which was suggested earlier,
can be re-used as a content map in the Getting Started module. If the LMS
does not include such a mapping device, the designer/developer(s) can cre-
ate a content map, carefully marking connections and redundancies for their
own as much as for the learners’ sakes. In addition, clearly listing and linking
assignments, assessments, and interactions (e.g., discussions, paired work, etc.) is
essential for online students. This information can appear both in the Getting
Started module and/or in a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) folder.
The Getting Started module should contain models of successful online
language learning for the proficiency level of the targeted audience. The more
students see the traits and habits of successful learners, the more likely it will
46  Basics of Online Course Design

be that they will succeed in the course. Short profiles of successful students
and clips of them engaging in best practices, for example, can be extremely
instrumental. Integrating learning standards and proficiency targets into intro-
ductory materials helps direct the learners and their learning. The NCSSL-
ACTFL Can-Do Statements are particularly helpful in this respect (Ziegler
& Moeller, 2012). Furthermore, CASLS offers them in digital and mobile
versions of LinguaFolio Online.
In addition to the basic information to orient the learner toward successful
learning, the Getting Started module should list all the necessary hardware,
software, and wetware (i.e., the human brain, which refers to the acumen
needed to operate the hardware and software). Many online education provid-
ers offer a one-size-fits-all approach to orienting students to learning online.
However, for online language learning, extra steps and training are critical.
Students must be prepared to work on all four skills across the three modes
of communication (interpretive reading or listening, interpersonal speaking
or writing, and presentational speaking and/or writing) by means of tools
for audio-visual recording and online collaboration and communication (see
Chapter 2 for online tools that stimulate the three modes of communication).
Throughout the design and development phases, course creators should
keep a running list of these applications and tools since user instructions are
needed for each one. Some training may be generic, supplied by the product
maker or training sites like Hoonuit and LinkedIn Learning. Design teams may
be able to tailor the generic ones for language learning online through extra
steps or non-standard uses. Some generic user instructions are even available
in various languages, which is a great way of infusing authentic communica-
tion in the interpretive reading mode if the learners’ proficiency level is high
enough to understand this content in the target language. An example can be
found in the PDF from FlipGrid for world languages. Again, demonstrating
competent engagement with the technologies and instruction through short
video clips or other graphic, audio, or multimedia imagery promotes success in
online learning. The graphic below (Figure 1.8) is used to familiarize students
with the course site for engaging in curation tasks in an Intermediate-level
blended French course.

Teaching, Social, and Cognitive Presences

Transactional distance in online education was defined by Moore in 1991 as
“a psychological and communication space to be crossed, a space of potential
misunderstanding between the inputs of instructor and those of the learner”
 Basics of Online Course Design  47

Figure 1.8  Screenshot with callouts as activity instructions for a blended course on the
French2@VCU curation site of rampages.us, 2017.
CC BY SA 4.0.

(Moore, 1991, p. 23). Three primary types of presence in distance learning have
been posited by educators to reduce that distance: teaching, social, and cogni-
tive (Moore, 1991; Zhang, 2003). Presence in online teaching and learning is a
critical aspect of student engagement in secondary and postsecondary online
education (Garrison 2006a, 2006b; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Kuh, 2005;
Chickering & Gamson, 1987). Garrison and other scholars have fleshed out
the idea of a community of inquiry in online educational or distance settings.
(Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000). What follows details teaching, social, and
cognitive presence in the online learning environment (Garrison, 2006a, 2006b).

Teaching Presence
Teaching presence emerges from a robust, thoughtful design of the materials,
tasks, and their articulated steps, as well as their learning support mechanisms
(Shea, 2006; Shea, Pickett, & Pelz, 2003). Teaching presence is designed inten-
tionally into an online course to ensure an easy, logical passage through the
flow of course materials and to help learners avoid a sense of alienation or
isolation. Some proven techniques to create and promote teaching presence
are a humanizing instructor introduction, easy navigation, accessible help and
guides, and a clear course calendar with a list of all due dates.
A welcome e-mail or Start Here document should make students feel that
they are part of a learning community with a very real, human teacher. This
can be done in different ways, like an e-mail or welcome letter or by a personal
48  Basics of Online Course Design

introduction via audio or video clip. For advanced students, the introduction
might be in the target language. Other instructors create a tab or folder on the
LMS that includes instructional staff contact information, a personal video or
photos, and other “snapshots” of a very human instructor. Some create a teach-
ing persona or an avatar like those from gaming and virtual worlds. A friendly
teaching avatar is quite appropriate in large institutional or commercial settings
where instructional staff routinely rotate in and out of online courses and where
a highly adaptable, changeable teaching presence is needed. The University of
Texas at Austin, for its online French OER materials, has Tex, a teaching arma-
dillo, to tap into state and school pride (see Figure 1.9 below). School spirit
and a sense of belonging is important to many learners (Chickering & Gamson,
1987; Stephens, Fryberg, Markus, Johnson, & Covarrubias, 2012). There are
myriad ways to personalize one’s online presence from avatars to emoticons,
from e-mails to announcements, from assessment feedback to encouraging
notes. Anything that compensates for the lack of immediacy and humanness of
the teacher in the online environment creates teaching presence.

Figure 1.9  The University of Texas avatar, Tex, the armadillo, from Français Interactif by the
Department of French, University of Texas, Austin. (n.d.).
CC BY.
 Basics of Online Course Design  49

Policies for group and individual interactions with students through e-mail,
the LMS learning platform(s), and apps should take students’ lives, learning
curves, and workloads into consideration. At the same time, faculty should not
lose work-life balance nor be expected to be available 24/7 to respond to the
open time frames of online learning. The online venue does mean, neverthe-
less, that learners are working at odd hours, perhaps in intense spurts. Overly
long response times can frustrate students and lead to their disengagement.
Well-designed policies and routines unburden the faculty workload as well
as promote student success. Still, given the distance factor, the instructor does
need to send out frequent, supportive, and timely announcements, reminders,
and feedback. Designing standard messages and reminders with predetermined
turnaround times figures into the design process.
The second part of the teaching presence is that of learner to content (i.e.,
the media and materials that provide the vehicle for learning). Since learners
need to connect smoothly to the LMS and given that they may often interact
with more than one interface (the LMS, a publisher website,YouTube videos,
various apps, virtual exchange or tutoring sites, etc.), it becomes extremely
important to avoid confusing or hard-to-locate resources. Some learners may
prefer to read print copy over digital reading. Research shows comprehen-
sion is higher from print-based reading. Singer and Alexander (2016) state,
“While there were no differences across mediums when students identified
the main idea of the text, students recalled key points linked to the main idea
and other relevant information better when engaged with print” (p. 155).
Boettcher and Conrad (2016) argue for all digital content to the exclusion of
print; yet, for the sake of accessibility and usability for all learners, especially
older learners, print content should be also made available (Jabr, 2013; Singer
& Alexander, 2016). Nonetheless, multimedia, linking, and digitally interactive
content often scaffold learning and engage students better and may not lend
themselves to print.
Some dimensions of face-to-face communication, such as touch and smell,
turning to a peer for quick help, an immediate intervention by the instructor,
or pairing off for a live scavenger hunt may seem hard to replicate online.
Yet even in asynchronous online courses, in-the-moment reactivity, pop-up
questions, links to additional resources, and nested videos can be created to
compensate for the loss of the face-to-face immediacy and presence. Part of
a module design might include a recorded synchronous session, the video of
which is annotated and made interactive with embedded quizzes. If the basic
design allows for synchronous learning sessions, the designer/instructor can
indicate during the design process which activities are best suited to video
50  Basics of Online Course Design

delivery and interactions via Skype, Zoom, Collaborate, or other virtual meet-
ing platforms such as GoReact, VoiceThread, or FlipGrid, which allow stu-
dents and/or instructors to interact orally. See Chapters 2 and 3 for more
information on these platforms.
Designing first-week, midterm, and final surveys that gauge students’ sense
of the teaching presence helps catch feelings of estrangement. Problems can
be remediated by additional announcements, encouraging e-mails, more sup-
portive feedback on work submitted, or a midterm video recounting the suc-
cesses the class has achieved. Most educational institutions already encourage
midterm grade reports, but the online arena is best served by even more fre-
quent reporting and grade updates since the impetus of student performance
in a traditional classroom and the immediacy of its scaffolding are less present
and tend to convey less urgency in online learning environments (Kelly, 2014).
High withdrawal and failure rates online often stem from a perceived lack of
human interaction and attention (Hart, 2012). Successful programs manage to
foster a healthy online teaching presence, with timely, consistent responses and
encouragement (Bowers & Kumar, 2015).
At some larger institutions, design factors and materials to implement best
practices in developing and delivering content are provided to faculty creating
new courses. The State University of New York (SUNY) Learning Network
offers a flexible online platform through its course management system along
with instructional design staffing and support (Shea et al., 2003). A consis-
tent design framework enables SUNY online students to successfully navigate
online courses. As faculty develop courses, they customize the design frame-
work and attend to their teaching presence by: a) setting the curriculum, b)
establishing time parameters, c) utilizing the medium effectively, and d) estab-
lishing netiquette, which are the ground rules for civil communication online.
Each step reinforces best practices in maintaining teaching presence.

Social Presence
Social presence is “the ability to project one’s self and establish personal
and purposeful relationships. The three main aspects of social presence …
are effective communication, open communication and group cohesion”
(Garrison, 2006b). In our field, where communication across many borders
and media and its emphasis on cultural competencies to foster understanding
and cohesion among disparate peoples are of paramount importance, social
presence is doubly important. In the asynchronous online classroom, creating
social presence reduces the alienating effects of the foreignness of the sub-
ject matter and the online venue. There are two types of social presence to
 Basics of Online Course Design  51

establish: that of the class as a whole group, as well as that of individual learn-
ers as they interface with the teacher and classmates. Creating social presence
fosters the identity formation of individual learners as language learners and
increasingly competent intercultural agents. Garrison and Arbaugh (2007)
warn that “groups do not naturally coalesce … particularly in situations where
the task and challenge is to make sense of complex and disparate information”
(p. 163). They advise direction and facilitation to achieve greater group devel-
opment. In online language learning, students may find the learning envi-
ronment doubly “foreign.” They are entering a linguistic and cultural world
unlike the physical one they inhabit as well as doing so in a “foreign” medium,
where making group connections, providing mutual support, and sharing
knowledge and skills are especially important.
For adolescent and young adult learners for whom personal and social
identity formation is a work in progress, assuming a new and “foreign” facet to
their “self ” through the acquisition of a new language may feel destabilizing or
even threatening, which could complicate already awkward social interactions
in online spaces. Designing a space for peer exchange in the L1 for learners at
lower levels of proficiency to discuss and reflect on language learning and for-
eign cultural experiences may help to enhance the collective experience. The
Communities and Comparisons standards of the ACTFL World-Readiness
Standards (National Standards Collaborative Board, 2015) can come into play.
Learners can share where and how they can engage in intercultural expe-
riences. They can then also build social presence with outside L2 commu-
nities, like international students and visitors on campus and beyond. Many
cities have Sister City organizations, fellowship groups, language and cultural
resource centers and associations, and Chambers of Commerce where the
learner can increase social presence. The work of social presence is often the
core of a language classroom. Warm-ups like those suggested under teaching
presence help create social presence, where the learning community shares
information about families and pets, likes and dislikes, and who they are as
people. Questions and answers become exchanges of real information and not
just vocabulary exercises. Nonetheless, the online classroom is an academic
experience, not just an occasion for interpersonal bonding. The social pres-
ence in class needs to grow from group cohesion toward a group solidarity by
working toward a common learning goal (Garrison, 2006a, p. 27).

Cognitive Presence
Garrison (2006b) define cognitive presence as the point in “a cycle of prac-
tical inquiry where participants move deliberately from understanding the
52  Basics of Online Course Design

problem or issue through to exploration, integration and application” (p. 65).

It involves the upper reaches of Bloom’s Taxonomy (Anderson et al., 2001).
Moving beyond exploration to resolution is difficult to achieve online and
depends heavily on the instructional role (Garrison, 2006b). Online teachers,
through the materials and instructions they provide (the teaching presence),
must construct a field of practical steps that lead learners to collaborate, process
their learning together (social presence), and finally reflect upon it individu-
ally to resolve and consolidate the entire learning process (cognitive presence).
These steps require more thought and preparation in a language learning
environment, where 90% of instruction is delivered in the target language. At
lower levels of language acquisition, it takes considerable planning and fore-
thought to design online instruction and interactions in the target language
for novice language students.Therefore, it is vital to employ images, circumlo-
cutions, cognates, animations, and videos to facilitate students’ comprehension
in the target language. As Glisan and Donato (2017) write, “Using the [target
language] TL in ways that foster comprehension requires more than showing
pictures or making gestures to illustrate what is said…. [L]anguage learning
is precisely about language and meaning; an overreliance on using pictures
and gestures could prevent learners from engaging cognitively with the TL.
Pictures and gestures … should never entirely replace learners’ attention to the
meanings and functions that language forms convey” (p. 22). Online modules
can support teaching in the target language with scaffolding resources that
learners access as needed and that lead them precisely to working through the
meanings and functions the language is conveying.
Paying careful attention to the three presences during each aspect of the
instructional design process is of paramount importance for stimulating learner
engagement in the course. Research findings on the three presences are pre-
sented in Chapter 5 and it should be noted here that the most difficult pres-
ence to foster in an online course or program is social presence.

Designing for Assessment of Student Learning

In backward design, once the learning outcomes are clearly stated, the designer
or design team determines the evidence that will demonstrate what students
should be able to do as a result of instruction. Based on the ACTFL standards
that have guided the field of world language education in the United States
for over three decades, the linguistic and cultural competencies, progressing
from Novice through Distinguished proficiencies, describe what language
users know and can do in the three modes of communication—interpretive,
 Basics of Online Course Design  53

Table 1.2  Table comparing proficiency levels in CEFR, ILR, and ACTFL scales

CEFR ILR ACTFL

0 0 Novice Low
0 0/0+ Mid
A1.1 0/0+ High
A1.2 /A2 1 Intermediate Low
A2/B1.1 1/1+ Mid
B1.1/B1.2 1+ High
B1.2/B2.1 1+/2 Advanced Low
B2.1/B2.2 2/2+ Mid
C1.1 3 High
C1.2 3/3+ Superior
C2 4/4+ Distinguished
*Note. Wikipedia, n.d. Retrieved in part from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ILR_scale. CC BY SA 4.0.

interpersonal, and presentational—and their intercultural competence. The

proficiency framework arose in part from recognition of the Interagency
Language Roundtable (IRL) ratings that have guided United States federal
agencies in assessing linguistic and cultural competencies of its staff and of
other governmental stakeholders. They are similar to the CEFR standards
and outcomes articulated by the Council of Europe in the 1970s and 1980s.
The elaboration of the corresponding proficiency framework, known as the
ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines, is harmonized with the ILR and CEFR
levels in Table 1.2 (ACTFL, 2012; North, 2006).
The ACTFL ratings are set forth in five levels: Novice, Intermediate,
Advanced, Superior, and Distinguished. The Novice through Advanced lev-
els have three sublevels each: Low, Mid, High. The CEFR has only three
levels on its scale: A, B, and C. Each of its levels contains two subscales: 1
and 2. Thus, one might have an A1 through C2 rating. The IRL Scales range
from 0 (no proficiency), 1 (elementary), 2 (limited working), 3 (professional
working), 4 (full professional), through 5 (native or bilingual), which is not
listed on this table since it does not have a corresponding ACTLF or CEFR
level. A full description of ACTFL, CEFR, and WIDA proficiency levels is
presented in Chapter 3.
Given that some online language programs can enroll learners from around
the world, the various standards and scales should figure into the learning out-
comes and they should be used to determine the proficiency expected by the
end of the course of instruction. In addition to the more general proficiency
goals, the instructor, designer, or design team must also refer to the specific
54  Basics of Online Course Design

learning outcomes for content courses and professional certifications like legal
or medical translation and interpretation. During the analysis phase, the min-
imum acceptable level of proficiency for entering and exiting the course is
determined. Setting proficiency targets for an online course sets the stage to
select precise standards and Can-Do Statements. Based on these, the instructor,
designer, or design team chooses the scaffolding mechanisms, activities, and
resources needed to achieve them. The types of evidence to be collected are
chosen to demonstrate student performance at that level.The course designers
should additionally be considering which ACTFL Performance Descriptors
(ACTFL, 2015) or WIDA Performance Definitions (WIDA, 2018a, 2018b)
align with summative unit and/or final course assessments.
Next, the instructional designers must choose the types of evidence
and rubrics that will demonstrate the level of individual student learning
and performance of communication tasks at the targeted proficiency level.
Differentiating the types of evidence permits diverse learners to show what
they can do on a given performance task. In UDL, the idea is to allow learn-
ers multiple means of expression (see Chapter 2 for a deeper discussion of
UDL and multiple means of expression). Designers and instructors need to set
up multiple ways for students to show their ability to perform on a given task or
assessment. Hans Traxler’s often-used cartoon in Figure 1.10 satirizes so-called

Figure 1.10  Cartoon showing the need for differentiated testing.

(Traxler, 1983) Permission to reprint granted.
 Basics of Online Course Design  55

equitable testing situations. The learners—a crow, a monkey, a pelican, an ele-

phant, a fish, a seal, and a dog—are given a one-size-fits-all test: to climb a tree!
Differentiation has to be built into both instruction and assessment. Tasks,
activities, and assessments should allow learner individuation as much as pos-
sible. For example, an online module or lesson might include a single text
with three means of representation: written text, an audio reading of the text
followed by the written text, and a video version with audio, images, and
full text subtitling. For assessing learners’ ability to interpret written texts,
for example, regardless of the means of representation chosen, learners would
answer questions about the text with the questions being posed in a similarly
differentiated style. Depending on the time frame for the entire online pro-
ject, it may only be possible to incorporate a couple of differentiated lessons
with corresponding assessments at first. Creating a ready set of three ways to
differentiate instructional materials allows the project team a handy means to
produce differentiated lessons and modules. Over time, however, based on stu-
dent reactions and performance, more can be added. Creating a design frame-
work open enough to accept additional instructional materials facilitates such
expansion and improvement.
By beginning with the final summative assessment and backward designing
instructional materials and interactions all the way to the start of the course,
the project team ensures that learners are primed to succeed. Their success is
bolstered by integrating similar forms of assessment throughout the course.
Where designers create a proficiency-based course, they should assess commu-
nicatively using performance-based assessments. Chapter 5 provides full details
regarding the research on performance-based assessments with examples of
how to integrate them in online language courses. Performance rating should
look much like the Can-Do targets in LinguaFolio. If needed, rubrics and
their ratings can be converted to percentages or scores for grading. Figure 1.11
is drawn from the CARLA site on assessment in world languages and visual-
izes a group activity with its Can-Do statement for interpersonal speaking and
a rubric for evaluating student performance.
For the final summative assessment, there might be achievement testing or
the completion of a project with stated skill targets and performance modes.
In the event that a proficiency rating is also needed, the instructional team can
either create their own testing or use existing ones, like the ACTFL oral pro-
ficiency interview (OPI) and the written proficiency test (WPT), the reading
proficiency test (RPT), the listening proficiency test (LPT), or those from
testing companies like the OWL and AVANT Stamp tests (see more in Chapter 3
on proficiency testing).
56  Basics of Online Course Design

Figure 1.11  Interpersonal task with assessment rubric.

Created for CARLA, University of Minnesota (Peterson, n.d.).
 Basics of Online Course Design  57

Finding a balance between efficiency and effectiveness may be difficult

when designing an online course. There are, however, an increasing number
of automated testing programs and applications that can facilitate test taking
and grading.The major publishing companies like Pearson, Cengage, and Vista
Higher Learning incorporate automated grading features for many tests and
some student writing. Extempore offers a robust tool for oral testing along
with good feedback mechanisms for teachers. Good instructional design can
improve assessment routines by affording the learners models of and resources
for interpersonal and presentational writing. For example, it can demonstrate
how to create and revise compositions using tools like the Wordreference.com
site or BonPatron, a French writing assistant (O’Neill, 2019). More information
on assessment tools is provided in Chapter 2.
The final design issue regarding assessment is that of assessment and exam
proctoring. Where traditional forms of testing are expected, the online course
may offer on-campus or distance proctoring. If students can be expected to
submit to examination in a specific place, say a testing center on a campus,
there are fewer difficulties. Many online campus programs set up a 50-mile
radius policy for onsite testing.Yet, this may defeat the idea of a course offer-
ing distance learning. Many public community colleges across the United
States have testing centers where proctored exams might be arranged even if
the course is offered from another institution, even in a different state. Some
public libraries and churches, too, may offer proctoring services. For military
students, the authors have managed to arrange proctoring at a duty station
under strict control. Off-campus sites may charge fees; thus, the testing is best
worked out during the analysis and design phases. Some of the language pub-
lishers offer online testing with screen lockdown. With a locked down screen,
once students start the exam, they can only work on the test, with no other
tabs or browsers being open. Nonetheless, there is no way to preclude the use
of a cell phone or another device. There are also online proctoring services
like ProctorU, Proctorio, Examity, Pearson Vue, among others (Dimeo, 2017).
Generally, the online proctoring services set up a rigorous student identifi-
cation protocol, time limits for the testing, room checks to assure there are
no forbidden resources or aids, and either ongoing video interfacing and/or
keystroke captures to ensure that the test-taker looks primarily at the screen
and stays on task. Anomalies are signaled to the instructor at the end of the
session. Still any of these workarounds can be hacked; no surveillance method
is foolproof. Some schools simply rely on their honor code to stop cheating.
Performance-based and portfolio-based assessments such as LinguaFolio,
however, can circumvent the need for proctoring. However, LinguaFolio is
58  Basics of Online Course Design

designed as a learner’s ePortfolio and not as an institutional assessment tool.

Given the philosophy and intended use of LinguaFolio as a tool for aggre-
gating evidence of student learning and reflective self-assessment (with subse-
quent teacher review of the student’s self-reported success), some instructors,
such as the authors, have been able to incorporate it as a part of individual
student contracts and graded tasks, rather than ascribing a point system to the
assigned Can-Do targets. To do so, it is necessary to align the tasks (graded)
with LinguaFolio Can-Do targets, grading the evidence in a final submission,
but not grading the student’s self-assessment.
Anti-plagiarism program like Safe-Assign (free in Blackboard), Grammarly,
or TurnItIn, among others compare a student’s written work to a massive
Internet archive of digitized texts to discover large scale identical or nearly
identical phrasings. The system assigns a percentage of similarity and the pro-
grams cite the original text so the instructors can make their own determin-
ations. The best defense against cheating and plagiarism is tailoring the course
and its assessment to authentic, engaging communication that inspires students
to express themselves in the L2.

Designing for Accessibility, Usability, and Inclusivity

This section addresses three aspects of online course design that touch on
the rights, responsibilities, and perspectives that ensure that all learners are
treated equitably and respectfully. Accessibility relates to persons with dis-
abilities and it is a legal issue in instructional contexts within the United
States. Usability concerns the effective, efficient, and satisfying design of
a product, educational or otherwise, and may or may not address issues of
disability. Finally, inclusivity is about learner diversity and often includes a
discussion of UDL, known as design for all. The discussion of usability and
inclusivity below will fall under UDL.
What is accessibility? According to the Civil Rights Act of 1960 and the
United States Department of Education:

“Accessible” means a person with a disability is afforded the opportu-

nity to acquire the same information, engage in the same interactions,
and enjoy the same services as a person without a disability in an equally
effective and equally integrated manner, with substantially equivalent ease
of use.The person with a disability must be able to obtain the information
as fully, equally, and independently as a person without a disability.
(Office for Civil Rights, 2013)
 Basics of Online Course Design  59

Regulations and resources with respect to accommodations vary across sec-

ondary, postsecondary, public, private, and commercial arenas and from
country to country. In the United States, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation
Act, updated in 2018, now includes the incorporation of the Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0, with two levels, Level A and Level AA.
It means that not only must there be closed captioning for online courses,
but also videos must conform to the latest requirements. Language educa-
tion, which necessarily includes listening, speaking, reading, and writing, must
include possible and needed types of interventions. In the analysis phase, the
designer or team identifies institutional policies, for example WCAG2.1 A or
AA, and affordances available to their institution.They list all assistive technol-
ogies needed for learner input and output, noting any limitations for languages
online. Burgstahler (2017) offers 20 tips for creating ADA-compliant online
learning sites, documents, and resources. Listed below are ones not yet covered
in this chapter, but that bear attention:

●● Use descriptive wording for hyperlink text (e.g., “DO-IT Knowledge

Base” rather than “click here”).
●● Avoid using PDFs, especially those presented as images (i.e., the text can-
not be copied); if a PDF is used, design it to be accessible or create an
accessible alternative. Consider using accessibly designed HTML or Word
documents.
●● Provide concise text descriptions of content presented within images.
●● Make sure all content and navigation is accessible using the keyboard
alone and choose IT tools that are accessible.
●● Caption videos and transcribe audio content.
●● Make examples and assignments relevant to learners with a wide variety
of interests and backgrounds.
●● Offer outlines and other scaffolding tools to help students learn.
●● Provide adequate opportunities to practice.

Accessible, inclusive education involves deliberate design, instruction, and

assessment to meet the needs of all learners, whatever their background,
ability, orientation, marital status, health, or cognitive and learning style may
be. Focusing on physical disabilities in federal legislation since 1990, Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act
have expanded to broader dimensions of social, cultural, and economic factors
that limit educational access and success. Whether online, blended, flipped, or
face-to-face, exclusionary design elements must be recognized, confronted,
60  Basics of Online Course Design

dismantled, or avoided whether technological, pedagogical, or socio-cultural.

In the analysis phase detailed above, questions for identifying the breadth
and depth of learner diversity are suggested. Others may certainly be
added as society grows ever more inclusive. Given the iterative process of
ADDIE design, attention to accessibility and inclusivity can and should be
a focus throughout the life of every program, course or module (Glynn &
Wassell, 2018).
Designing with differentiation is designing for accessibility. Online instruc-
tional design pays a great deal of attention to universal design and accessi-
bility. The MLA, in its Guidelines for Information and Technology Access and
Support for the Modern Languages (MLA, 2013), has stipulated that depart-
ments and their institutions should: “support best practices in universal design
and accessibility. Technologies that permit persons with disabilities to conduct
research, teach, learn, and carry out other professional and educational respon-
sibilities effectively should be made available. Institutions must be aware of
and comply with federal regulations regarding accessibility” (Guideline #4).
However, accessibility is not just about defined disabilities.
UDL guidelines were first elaborated in the 1990s by Meyer and Rose
at CAST to provide, “a tool that can be used to design learning experiences
that meet the needs of all learners” (CAST, 2018a). Educational, cognitive,
and neuroscientific research have established that learners vary significantly in
their response to instruction.Thus, instruction must strive for multiple ways to
engage learners, represent the information to be learned, and to allow learners
to express what they have learned. The goal is to develop learners to be pur-
poseful, motivated, resourceful, and knowledgeable in their learning (CAST,
2018b).
There are tools for designing and checking LMS sites for accessibility
and usability. Blackboard has produced an online UDL tool called Ally,
an add-on feature that can be purchased and integrated directly into their
LMS and in Sakai, Moodle, D2L Brightspace, and Canvas, among others, to
address accessibility. It can automatically check course materials for accessi-
bility issues based on WCAG and give feedback on the accessibility of course
content. It will also suggest multiple means of representation of content by
alternative formats: tagged PDFs for use with assistive devices; ePubs for
reading as ebooks on iPads and other e-book readers; audio versions for
listening on personal devices (for example for students to listen to readings
when they cannot use their eyes); HTML for viewing in browsers and on
mobile devices; electronic braille (BRF) versions for e-braille displays. It
 Basics of Online Course Design  61

can also offer students a translated version of materials, which would not
be appropriate for a language class, except where instructions or prompts
in the institutional L1 could be translated into an international student’s
home-based L1, but should not include the L2 content being taught. Ally
also works on websites to offer the same suite of accessibility indicators
and alternative formats for content. Ally may well improve accessibility and
inclusivity for those who can afford to integrate it, although at the time of
this writing it is still in its early stages. CIDI labs has created DesignPLUS
to help in the design of Canvas learning sites. It integrates seamlessly into
Canvas and includes an accessibility checker. D2L Brightspace offers an
onboard HTML and accessibility checker in versions above 10.7.1.
The design team should take care to represent all learners, irrespective of
gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, ability, age, family status,
etc. In language learning, target cultures and ethnicities—each with its
own products, practices, and perspectives, and some of which may appear
contrary to those of the L1 or L2 culturality—should be introduced to the
learners in sensitive, non-judgmental ways that neither ignore nor under-
play L1 biases that the learners will have to navigate to increase their inter-
cultural competencies.

Alpha and Beta Testing

An important part of evaluation is testing in alpha and beta modes. Alpha
testing identifies issues before a course is released to real students. It simu-
lates students engaged in the course in various functions: course navigation,
instruction, following a task, or taking an assessment. As a design issue it must
be programmed into the workflow at strategic times. For example, an alpha
test might be an instrument that checks the course flow for ease of navigation
and logical progression.
The second stage, called beta testing, should provide input on the course
products as they reach their final forms. A cross-section of beta testers should
resemble the students who are expected to take the course. A careful review
of their performance across the instructional materials and assessments helps
refine those elements. Furthermore, their reflections on navigation, their satis-
faction with course structure and its elements, and the like, help the designer
or project team fix major problems and issues before real students register
for the course. Beta testing, like alpha testing, must be programmed into the
design and development timetable.
62  Basics of Online Course Design

Evaluating the Design

This chapter has covered the essentials of design for online language courses
and programs using the ADDIE process. The design of an online course
should be robust, coherent, accessible, learner centered, and learning focused.
During the development phase, changes can be made. A sound, compre-
hensive analysis phase followed by healthy design protocols, like those listed
above, and open, collaborative engagement and communication with all
stakeholders—designers, administrators, faculty, students, and community
partners—promotes success.
Questions that can bring a team back on track are: Which path will
result in the learners attaining the designated goals? What will be the impact
of a given choice on the learning process and the eventual success of the
learners? They should be followed by: What does current research tell us
about the effectiveness of the overall course design and its major compo-
nents; about the efficacy of technologies and online learning modalities that
the team has chosen; about proven student learning outcomes for current
online language learning pedagogies and media? Using data-driven research
to check assumptions and traditional ways of delivering language learning
will result in healthier and more robust, and eventually successful, online
language instruction, as Chapter 5 will show. Moreover, online learning
in the digital environment, with its increasing access to learning analytics,
is particularly primed for data collection on individual and group activity.
For example, the Open University in England, known for its leadership in
online learning worldwide, is heading a multi-year project that will draw
upon ten years of data collection and research. It plans to explore the use-
fulness of learner analytics and learning design data for faculty and students,
the optimal balance of learning design and analytics for retention, where
student voice is located in design and analytics, and best ways to support
faculty and institutions in using both (Institute of Educational Technology,
n.d.). Their work will undoubtedly move the field of online education for-
ward in significant ways.
Suvorov stated during the BOLDD workshop at the 2019 CALICO confer-
ence that evaluation determines the merit of a program and measures observed
outcomes in light of program objectives. It assigns value to results. One may (and
often does) gather learner assessment data as part of a program evaluation (Murphy-
Judy, Hromalik, Russell, & Suvorov, 2019). Each step in the ADDIE process should
include its own evaluation. If at all possible, securing outside observers to con-
sider and challenge assumptions and practices as the project evolves will lead to
 Basics of Online Course Design  63

improvement. Outside resources can help with quality assurance in each phase.
Evaluation, however, has to be designed into each step of the ADDIE pro-
cess. During and after integration, data gathered from summative assessments,
learner satisfaction surveys, faculty evaluation reports, technical reports, and
feedback from learner participation and formative performances and the like
all funnel into a well-designed plan for evaluation.
Organizations like Quality Matters offer evaluation resources for institu-
tions and individuals looking to create and deploy eLearning in the United
States and abroad. In Europe, ERASMUS has commissioned the European
Higher Education Area (ESG, 2015) to provide quality assurance guidelines.
Huertas et al. (2019) describe the “constituting elements of quality” across
ten areas: institutional support, course development, teaching and learning,
course structure, student support, faculty support with compulsory eLearn-
ing training for new members of staff, technological infrastructures, student
assessment (learner authentication, work authorship, and examination secu-
rity) and certification and electronic security measures (pp. 6–7). Of note
is the attention they pay to what we call te(a)chnologies: “In the eLearning
context, it is well to consider innovation strategies, rapid iterative review,
and connections between research and pedagogy and/or learning design
(which requires knowledge of the latest innovations in order to select the
most appropriate means for achieving learning objectives)” (p. 6). Still, stu-
dents and student learning must always be the driving force behind any kind
of educational program, whatever the mode of delivery. Student activity in
eLearning and assessment, as noted in the revised European Standards and
Guidelines for Quality Assurance (2015) Standard 1.3, is central to evalu-
ation of an entire program: “Institutions should ensure that programs are
delivered in a way that encourages students to take an active role in cre-
ating the learning process, and that the assessment of students reflects this
approach” (p. 12).
Vlachopoulos (2016) undertook a comprehensive literature review of
quality assurance and roadmaps for eLearning. His article provides a wealth
of information from the four corners of the globe on what quality eLearning
design looks like and includes. His graphic representation of best practices
in Figure 1.12 includes five focal areas: conceptual investigation, assurance,
face-to-face and eLearning, quality in distance/online education, and quality
design standards in eLearning courses.
The eResources for this chapter offer several checklists for effective online
design as well as for more general project evaluation. Below, however, is a short
checklist based on the major points of this section on design.
 64  Basics of Online Course Design
compliance with standards methodologies
accreditation effective students support internal assurance, external evaluation
excellence value-added criteria
transformation efficiency systems
policies
research
effectiveness culture monitoring procedures sustainable growth

accountability maintenance and

interpretation improvement attitudes
activities
competitiveness systematic measurement Assurance
academic satisfaction strengthening of academic culture

comparison with feedback

value for money a standard innovation

specified time & space compulsory movement

synchronous learning
international quality standard universal policies
financial prosperity
entry requirements
on campus delivery motivation mentality
F- to - F Quality
face to face communication
legal/regulatory requirements
age limits administrative commitment

openess limited Higher Education evaluation strategies

real time interaction Comparison e-QADeSHE Quality in Distance/Online Education
communication cooperation
synchronus complex and difficult
evaluation of the technological infrastructure
asynchronus system
programs leadership development
e-Learning
autonomy
content distribution services
interaction opportunities
evaluation distribution focus on results
multiple resources support
time consuming design technological
requirements Quality Design Standards continuous improvement
instructor in E-learning Courses
students facilitator students learning educators
isolation goals adequacy of
academic dishonesty
mentor learning learning materials
students’ needs priority guidance
activities
navigation training
support

opportunities for
improvement course professional
students development
overview

interaction

Figure 1.12  The roadmap of e-QADeSHE project.

Created by Dimitris Vlachopoulos for Athabasca University (Vlachopoulos, 2016).
CC BY
 Basics of Online Course Design  65

Checklist
⬜⬜ The LMS is chosen and has consistent and easy-to-use navigation plus an
area for course information and the Getting Started module;
⬜⬜ Clear course goal(s) and targeted learning outcomes are defined (in profi-
ciency terms, i.e., Can-Do benchmarks);
⬜⬜ Summative assessments for the entire course and for each module are aligned
with the course goals and learning objectives for each major module;
⬜⬜ The plan for integrating teaching, social, and cognitive presence throughout
the course and appropriate te(a)chnologies are chosen;
⬜⬜ Types of scaffolded and differentiated instructional materials and interac-
tions are in the planning stage;
⬜⬜ A plan to ensure accessibility, usability, and inclusivity for the course/
program is set;
⬜⬜ A plan to evaluate the design of the entire program or course is under
construction.

Conclusion
There are many ways to design for online, blended, and flipped language
learning.The ADDIE process presented here is time tested and, if used in con-
cert with a backward design model, offers a solid foundation for creating an
eLearning program, course, or module. By beginning the whole project with
the end in mind—which is to create standards-based instruction that engages
learners in authentic communication within a meaningful cultural context—a
virtual learning environment can be created to engage learners in a healthy,
humane community of inquiry, one that includes and supports their diverse
learning and social needs.

Key Takeaways
1. The design of an online language program is a serious, time-intensive
endeavor best undertaken by a financially and professionally supported team.
Many online language educators may not find themselves in such circum-
stances. Referring to the information in this chapter to analyze and design
an online course or program will help ensure that a good design emerges.
2. Asking the right questions and honestly appraising the context(s) in which
an online program will be delivered are fundamental to building a success-
ful, sustainable product.
66  Basics of Online Course Design

3. With a meta-perspective of the design phase, developers, faculty, and

administrators can envision possible ways to adapt or improve an emer-
ging or established online program.
4. Learning and the learners should always be at the heart of the creation of
an online program, course, or module.

Discussion Questions
1. What is your role in the design, adaptation of a design, or re-design of the
online program, course, or module? Which aspects of the overall course
creation are in your hands: all of it from start to finish; a single course
within an existing framework; a few lessons or modules; evaluation and
suggestions; consulting? What would you like your level of input to be?
2. Which of the ADDIE steps do you find the most important given your
role in the online program?
3. In your project, who will be your team members and what do they
bring to the project? Who are the leaders in online education at your
institution? How can you engage them to be part of your support
network?
4. Which offices or individuals may not support your online language
program or course? How and why are they pushing back? What can you
say or do to reduce their opposition? What information could you supply
them that might make them more supportive?

Suggestions for Further Reading

Bates, A. (2019). Teaching in the digital age. Chapter 4 and the Appendix A.
Retrieved from https://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/
Burgstahler, S. (2019). 20 Tips for teaching an accessible online course.
Retrieved from https://www.washington.edu/doit/20-tips-teaching-accessible-
online-course
Growth Engineering. (n.d.). Bloom’s Taxonomy and online learning.
Retrieved January 30, 2020, from https://www.growthengineering.co.uk/
what-can-blooms-taxonomy-tell-us-about-onlineLearning/
Simon, E., & Fell, C. (2013). Going hybrid: A how-to manual. Boulder: Anderson
Language Technology Center, University of Colorado. Retrieved from
https://tinyurl.com/goinghybridatcu
Wiggins, G., McTighe, J., & Gale Group. (2005). Understanding by design
(Expanded 2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
 Basics of Online Course Design  67

References
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). (2012).
Proficiency guidelines. Retrieved from https://www.actfl.org/resources/actfl-
proficiency-guidelines-2012
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). (2015).
Performance descriptors for language learners (2nd ed.). Retrieved from https://
cms.azed.gov/home/GetDocumentFile?id=5748a47daadebe04c0b66e64
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). (2017). Use of
the target language in language learning. Retrieved from https://www.actfl.org/
resources/guiding-principles-language-learning/use-target-language-
language-learning
Anderson, L.W. (Ed.), Krathwohl, D.R. (Ed.), Airasian, P.W., Cruikshank, K.A.,
Mayer, R.E., Pintrich, P.R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M.C. (2001). A taxonomy
for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational
Objectives (Complete edition). New York: Longman.
Armstrong, P. (2016). The new Bloom’s taxonomy. Website of the Vanderbilt
University Center for Teaching. Retrieved from https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/
guides-sub-pages/blooms-taxonomy/
Association of Departments of Foreign Languages (ADFL). (2014). Suggested best
practices and resources for the implementation of hybrid and online language courses.
Retrieved from https://www.adfl.mla.org/Resources/Policy-Statements/
Suggested-Best-Practices-and-Resources-for-the-Implementation-of-
Hybrid-and-Online-Language-Courses
Bates, A. W. (2019). Teaching in a digital age (2nd ed.). Retrieved from https://
pressbooks.bccampus.ca/teachinginadigitalagev2
Blake, R. J. (2010). The use of technology for second language distance
learning. Modern Language Journal, 93(5), 822–837.
Blake, Robert J. (2011). Current trends in online language learning. Annual
Review in Applied Linguistics, 31, 19–35.
Boettcher, J., & Conrad, R.M. (2016). The online teaching survival guide. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2006). Racism without racists: Colorblind racism and the persistence
of inequality in the United States. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Bowers, J., & Kumar, P. (2015). Students’ perceptions of teaching and social
presence: A comparative analysis of F2F and online learning environments.
International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies, 10, 27–44.
doi:10.4018/ijwltt.2015010103
Burgstahler, S. (2017). ADA compliance for online course design. Retrieved from https://
er.educause.edu/articles/2017/1/ada-compliance-for-online-course-design
68  Basics of Online Course Design

Burns, M. (2019, April 14). To read or not to read: Text in an online world.
eLearning Industry [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://elearningindustry.
com/text-in-an-online-world-read
Center for Applied Second Language Studies (CASLS). (2017). LinguaFolio online
unit planner guide.Retrieved from https://lfonetwork.uoregon.edu/wp-content/
uploads/sites/5/2016/03/Unit_Planner_Guide_Final_Updates.pdf
Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST). (2018a). Universal design for
learning guidelines version 2.2. Retrieved from http://udlguidelines.cast.org
Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST). (2018b). Universal design for
learning guidelines version 2.2 [Graphic organizer]. Retrieved from http://
udlguidelines.cast.org/binaries/content/assets/udlguidelines/udlg-v2–2/
udlg_graphicorganizer_v2–2_numbers-yes.pdf
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, A. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in
undergraduate education. Racine, WI: Johnson Foundation.
Christensen, C. M. (2011). The innovative university. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Cisco. (2019). The Cisco Visual Networking Index (VNI) global mobile data traffic
forecast, 2017–2022 white paper. Retrieved from https://www.cisco.com/c/
en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/visual-networking-index-vni/
white-paper-c11-738429.html
Clark, D. (2015). ADDIE (ISD). The performance juxtaposition. Retrieved
from http://www.nwlink.com/∼donclark/history_isd/addie.html
Clement, J. (2020, January). Share of global mobile website traffic 2015-2019.
Statistica. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/277125/share-
of-website-traffic-coming-from-mobile-devices/
Clementi, D. (n.d.). Flowchart for developing an IPA: Create a standards-based inte-
grated performance assessment unit step-by-step. Retrieved from carla.umn.edu/
assessment/vac/CreateUnit/p_1.html
Clinefelter, D. L., Aslanian, C. B., & Magda, A. J. (2019). Online college students
2019: Comprehensive data on demands and preferences. Louisville, KY: Wiley.
Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern
Language Review, 57(3), 402–423.
Council of Europe. (2011). Common European framework of reference for languages:
Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions (C-RAC). (2011). Interregional
guidelines for the evaluation of distance education. Retrieved from https://www.
nc-sara.org/files/docs/C-RAC%20Guidelines.pdf
Covey, S. R. (1989). The 7 habits of highly effective people: Powerful lessons in per-
sonal change. New York, NY: Free Press.
 Basics of Online Course Design  69

Department of French, University of Texas at Austin. (n.d.). Français interactif.

Liberal Arts Technology Services (LAITS) and the Center for Open
Educational Resources and Language Learning (COERLL). Retrieved
from https://www.laits.utexas.edu/fi/.
Dick, W., & Carey, L. (2014). The systematic design of instruction (8th ed.). New
York, NY: Pearson Education.
Dimeo, J. (2017, May 10). Online exam proctoring catches cheaters, raises
concerns. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered
.com/digital-learning/article/2017/05/10/online-exam-proctoring-
catches-cheaters-raises-concerns
Distance Education Accrediting Commission (DEAC). (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.deac.org/.
Downes, S. (2005). An introduction to connective knowledge. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248290359_An_Introduction_to_
Connective_Knowledge
Downs, L. R. (2018, May 17). Federal regulations Groundhog Day [Blog post].
Retrieved from https://wcetfrontiers.org/2018/05/17/federal-regulations-
groundhog-day/
Edutechnica. (2019). 7th annual LMS data update. Retrieved from https://
edutechnica.com/2019/10/07/7th-annual-lms-data-update
European Higher Education Area (ESG). (2015). Standards and guidelines for quality
assurance in the European higher education area. Brussels, Belgium. Retrieved from
https://enqa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ESG_2015.pdf
Garrison, D. R. (2006a). Online collaboration principles. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 10(1), 25–34. doi:10.24059/olj.v10i1.1768
Garrison, D. R. (2006b). Online community of inquiry review: Social, cogni-
tive, and teaching presence issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,
11(1), 61–72. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ842688
Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J.B. (2007). Researching the community of
inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. Internet and Higher
Education, 10, 157–172. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-
based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The
Internet and Higher Education, 2, 87–105.
Glisan E.W., & Donato, R. (2017). Enacting the work of language instruction: High
leverage teaching practices. Alexandria,VA: American Council on the Teaching
of Foreign Languages.
Glynn, C., & Wassell, B. (2018). Who gets to play? Issues of access and social
justice in world language study in the U.S. Dimension, 18-32. Retrieved
70  Basics of Online Course Design

from https://www.scolt.org/images/PDFs/dimension/2018/2_Dimension
2018.pdf
Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (2002). Survey of instructional development mod-
els (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Educational Resources Information Center.
Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1991). Constructionism: Research reports and essays, 1985–
1990. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Hart, C. (2012). Factors associated with student persistence in an online
program of study: A review of the literature. Journal of Interactive Online
Learning, 11(1), 19–42.
Hromalik, C. (2016). BOLDD Workshop CALICO 2016 [Presentation slides].
Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1QpqxKHRCgmlS
08flX1-Ms1wjlKpeAISFceOwHI8tRuk/edit#slide=id.ga0403043a_1_17
Hromalik, C. D., & Koszalka, T. A. (2018). Self-regulation of the use of digital
resources in an online language learning course improves learning outcomes.
Distance Education, 39(4), 528–547. doi:10.1080/01587919.2018.1520044
Huertas, E., Biscan, I., Ejsing, C., Kerber, L., Kozlowska, L., Ortega, S., …
Seppmann, G. (2019). Considerations for quality assurance of eLearning provi-
sion (Report from the ENQA Working Group VIII on quality assurance and
eLearning Occasional Papers 26). Retrieved from the ENQA website: http://
www.enqa.eu/index.php/publications/papers-reports/occasional-papers
Institute of Educational Technology, Open University. (n.d.). Learning analytics
and learning design. Retrieved from https://iet.open.ac.uk/themes/learning-
analytics-and-learning-design
Jabr, F. (2013, April 11). The reading brain in the digital age: The science of
paper versus screens. Scientific American. Retrieved from https://www
.scientificamerican.com/article/reading-paper-screens/
Kelly, R. (2014, February 27). Feedback strategies for online courses. Faculty
Focus. Retrieved from https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/online-
education/feedback-strategies-online-courses/
Kenny, J., & Fluck, A. (2017, September 21). Online courses more time-
consuming, to prepare for, study says. The Times Higher Education Supplement.
Retrieved from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/online-
courses-more-time-consuming-prepare-study-says
Kuh, G. D. (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Looney, D., & Lusin, N. (2019). Enrollments in languages other than English in United
States institutions of higher education, summer 2016 and fall 2016: Final report.
Modern Language Assocation (MLA). Retrieved from https://www.mla.org/
content/download/110154/2406932/2016-Enrollments-Final-Report.pdf.
 Basics of Online Course Design  71

Ma, R. (2019). The emergence of China’s nationally-recognized MOOCs. Classcentral

.com. Retrieved from https://www.classcentral.com/report/china-national-
moocs/
Magliaro, S. G., & Shambaugh, N. (2006). Student models of instructional
design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(1), 83–106.
doi:10.1007/s11423-006-6498-y
McKenzie, L. (2018, December). EdX’s struggle for sustainability. Inside
Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/
digital-learning/article/2018/12/18/quest-long-term-sustainability-
edx-tries-monetize-moocs
Modern Language Association (MLA). (2013). Guidelines for information and
technology access and support for the modern languages, committee on information
technology. Retrieved from https://www.mla.org/About-Us/Governance/
Committees/Committee-Listings/Professional-Issues/Committee-on-
Information-Technology/Guidelines-for-Information-Technology-Access-
and-Support-for-the-Modern-Languages
Moore, M. (1991). Editorial: Distance education theory. American Journal of
Distance Education, 5(3), 1–6.
Murphy-Judy, K. (2020). An ADDIE model for online world language course
or program creation. (Author-created image from personal archive).
Murphy-Judy, K., & Johnshoy, M. (2017). Who’s teaching which languages
online? A report based on national surveys. The IALLT Journal, 47(1),
137–167.
Murphy-Judy, K., Hromalik, C., Russell, V., & Suvorov, R. (2019, May). Basic
online language design and delivery.Workshop presented at the CALICO 2019
Conference, Montréal, Canada.
National Council for State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements
(NC-SARA). (2019). Standards and policies. Retrieved from https://www
.nc-sara.org/resources/sara-manual-192-effective-06012019
National Council of State Supervisors for Languages, & American Council on
the Teaching of Foreign Languages (NCSSFL-ACTFL). (2017). NCSSFL-
ACTFL can-do statements. Retrieved from https://www.actfl.org/resources/
ncssfl-actfl-can-do-statements
National Standards Collaborative Board. (2015). World-readiness standards for
learning languages (4th ed.). Alexandria,VA: Author.
North, B. (2006, March). The common European framework of reference:
Development, theoretical and practical issues. Paper presented at the symposium
A New Direction in Foreign Language Education: The Potential of the
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, Osaka, Japan.
72  Basics of Online Course Design

Office for Civil Rights. (2013). Resolution agreement: South Carolina

Technical College System, OCR Compliance Review No. 11-11-6002.
Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/
investigations/11116002-b.pdf
Official Journal of the European Union. (2019, June). L151. “Legislation”
(English ed.). 62(7), 70-115. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/
TXT/?uri=OJ:L:2019:151:TOC
Ohio Department of Education. (n.d.). Backward design of a thematic unit.
Retrieved from http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Learning-in-Ohio/
Foreign-Language/World-Languages-Model-Cur r iculum/World-
Languages-Model-Curriculum-Framework/Instructional-Strategies/
Backward-Design
O’Neill, E. (2019). Training students to use online translators and dictionaries.
International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning 8 (2), 47–65.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students (2nd ed.).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Patra, S. (2019). A complete list of SWAYAM free online courses and MOOCs.
Retrieved from https://www.classcentral.com/report/swayam-moocs-course-
list/#Humanities
Peterson, W. (n.d.). Interpersonal task assessment rubric. CARLA website on assess-
ment. Retrieved from https://carla.umn.edu/assessment/vac/improvement/
rubrics/figure7.html
Reinders, H., & White, C. (2016). 20 years of autonomy and technology:
How far have we come and where to next? Language Learning and
Technology, 20(2), 143–154. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/
june2016/reinderswhite.pdf
Ribbe, E., & Bezanilla, M.-J. (2013). Scaffolding learner autonomy in online
university courses. Digital Education Review, 24, 98–113. Retrieved from
http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/der/article/view/11279
Rose, D. H., Meyer, A., Strangman, N., & Rappolt, G. (2002). Teaching every
student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria,VA: ASCD.
Shea, P. (2006). A study of students’ sense of learning community in online
environments. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(10), 35–44.
doi:10.24059/olj.v10i1.1774
Shea, P., Pickett, A., & Pelz, W. (2003). A follow-up investigation of “teaching
presence” in the SUNY Learning Network. Journal of Asynchronous Learning
Networks, 7(2), 61–80. doi:10.24059/olj.v7i2.1856
Shearer, R. (2003). Instructional design in distance education: An overview. In
M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
 Basics of Online Course Design  73

Shrum, J. L., & Glisan, E. W. (2010). Teacher’s handbook: Contextualized language

instruction (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle.
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: Learning as network creation [Master’s thesis].
Retrieved from http://masters.donntu.org/2010/fknt/lozovoi/library/
article4.htm
Singer, L. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2016). Reading across mediums: Effects of
reading digital and print texts on comprehension and calibration. Journal of
Experimental Education, 85(1), 155–172.
Skinner, B. F. (1974/2011). About behaviorism. New York, NY:Vintage.
Smaldino, S. (n.d.). ASSURE. Retrieved from http://www.instructionaldesign
.org/models/assure.html
Sneed, O. (2016, May 9). Integrating technology with Bloom’s taxonomy.
TeachOnline. Retrieved from https://teachonline.asu.edu/2016/05/integrating-
technology-blooms-taxonomy/
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS), Commission on Colleges.
(1997/2012). Distance and correspondence education policy statement. Retrieved
from http://www.sacscoc.org/pdf/DistanceCorrespondenceEducation
.pdf
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS), Commission on Colleges.
(2016). Principles of accreditation. http://www.sacscoc.org/pdf/2012Principles
OfAcreditation.pdf
Southern Region Educational Board (SREB). (2012). Principles of good practice:
The foundation for quality of southern regional education board’s electronic campus.
Retrieved from https://www.sreb.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/
principles_of_good_practice_6.22.2012_final.pdf
Stephens, N. M., Fryberg, S. A., Markus, H. R., Johnson, C. S., & Covarrubias,
R. (2012). Unseen disadvantage: How American universities’ focus on inde-
pendence undermines the academic performance of first-generation col-
lege students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(6), 1178–1197.
doi:10.1037/a0027143
Stockwell, G., & Hubbard, P. (2013). Some emerging principles for mobile-assisted
language learning. Monterey, CA: International Research Foundation for
English Language Education. Retrieved from http://www.tirfonline.org/
english-in-the-workforce/mobile-assisted-languageLearning
Traxler, H. (1983). Chancengleichheit [Cartoon]. Hans Traxler, Chancengleichheit.
Schul-Spott: Karikaturen aus 2500 Jahren Pädagogik by M. Klant.
Vlachopoulos, D. (2016). Assuring quality in e-learning course design: The
roadmap. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning,
17(6), 183–205. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v17i6.2784
74  Basics of Online Course Design

Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society:The development of higher psychological pro-

cesses. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE). (2018).
WICHE state authorization reciprocity agreement (W-SARA). Retrieved from
https://www.wiche.edu/sara.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (Expanded 2nd ed.,
Gale virtual reference library). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA). (2012). Amplification
of the English language development standards kindergarten–grade 12. Retrieved
from https://wida.wisc.edu/sites/default/files/resource/2012-ELD-Standards
.pdf
World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA). (2016). K-12 can
do descriptors, key uses edition. Retrieved from https://wida.wisc.edu/teach/
can-do/descriptors
World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA). (2018a). Performance
definitions: Listening and reading grades K–12. Retrieved from https://wida
.wisc.edu/sites/default/files/resource/Performance-Definitions-Receptive-
Domains.pdf
World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA). (2018b). Performance
definitions: Speaking and writing grades K–12. Retrieved from https://
wida.wisc.edu/sites/default/files/resource/Performance-Definitions-
Expressive-Domains.pdf
Zhang, A. (2003). Transactional distance in Web-based college learning environments:
Toward measurement and theory construction (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved
from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/117282
Zhong, Q. M. (2018). The evolution of learner autonomy in online environ-
ments: A case study in a New Zealand context. Studies in Self-Access Learning
Journal, 9(1), 71–85.
Ziegler, N., & Moeller, A. (2012). Increasing self-regulated learning through
the LinguaFolio. Foreign Language Annals, 45(3), 330–348. doi:10.1111/
j.1944-9720.2012.01205.x
Chapter 2

What Are the Nuts

and Bolts of Online
Teaching?
Introduction
Development begins once a design plan with a reasonable timeline has
emerged. The development phase in the ADDIE process—which includes
analysis, design, development, integration, and evaluation (see Chapter 1 for
a full description of ADDIE)—populates the learning platform or learning man-
agement system (LMS) with materials and opportunities for learner engage-
ment and reflection. The foundation of good design builds upon professional
standards (both for language education and for online education) and careful
attention to universal learning design (UDL) processes. Moreover, effective
online language courses should incorporate core practices for language
instruction (Glisan & Donato, 2017), which Chapter 3 describes, as well as
best practices for online course delivery, which are presented in Chapter 5.
Given the communicative learning goal and the online mode of delivery, a
two-pronged question stays central throughout the development phase: “How
will these materials deploy in the target language grounded in its authentic
culture(s) in an online environment?”
Online language learning is a new academic landscape for many students.
Although those born after 2000 may appear tech savvy, they are less so in

75
76  Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching

academic and professional uses of technologies and media. Online language

learners, as noted in Chapter 1, often face hurdles, which include the fol-
lowing: the foreignness of the language as well as its perspectives, practices,
and products; deficits in how to go about learning a language; not yet ade-
quate online learning behaviors (e.g., not staying on pace in the course);
and/or the fledgling ability to take responsibility for their own learning
(e.g., setting aside time each week to read materials, view lectures, and
complete assignments). Conole (2013), part of the Open University (OU)
Learning Analytics and Learning Design team, defines learning design as a
methodology for creating pedagogically sound activities and interventions
by what we are calling te(a)chnologies. With respect to online language
design and development, te(a)chnologies refer to having knowledge of the
current educational technologies that are available as well as the ability to
select and use the ones best suited for students to master the course learning
objectives. The overarching focus of online course development should be
on what learners will be able to do rather than on what teachers do. In
other words, the student’s development both as a language learner and as
an online learner should be foremost in the developer’s mind. This chapter
details the process of online course development with significant atten-
tion to strategies, tools, techniques, and procedures to develop a successful
online language learner.
Chapter 2 covers the development of: (1) the learner, (2) the learning man-
agement system, (3) the course structure, and (4) interaction and course activ-
ities. In addition, assessment routines and appropriate tools, further resources,
ancillary materials to support and expand student learning, and te(a)chnolo-
gies and tools to open readers’ minds to what is possible today and tomorrow
in the world of online language education are presented.

Developing the Learner

Successful online learning is a 21st century skill for lifelong learning. It goes
far beyond watching videos and navigating through links. In line with the
Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST, 2018) UDL Guideline #6,
Executive Functioning, better learning arises from effective goal setting,
planning and strategy development, managing information and resources,
and self-monitoring one’s progress. Whether students are learning language,
acquiring skills, or building content knowledge, they draw immediate and
future benefit from guidance in how to learn well online, manage their own
learning, and grow in self-regulation and learning autonomy.
 Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching  77

As set forth by Dabbagh (2007), a successful online learner displays the

following characteristics:

●● A strong academic self-concept

●● Fluency in the use of online learning technologies
●● Interpersonal and communication skills
●● Understanding and valuing interaction and collaborative learning
●● An internal locus of control
●● Self-directed learning skills
●● A need for affiliation (p. 220).

She adds skills in collaborative learning, social learning, as well as discursive/

dialogical abilities and the ability to engage in self and group evaluation
and reflection to the list (pp. 220–221). Of course, these attitudes and com-
petencies do not develop on their own; they must be fostered and devel-
oped with the guidance of competent online instructors.
Developing into a competent and successful online learner entails grow-
ing in self-regulated learning (SRL), which is characterized by learning how
to plan, set goals, and organize and manage one’s workload. This occurs
through self-monitoring and self-evaluation, whereby learners increasingly
rely on themselves rather than on others. SRL develops in tandem with meta-
cognition, motivation, and effective habits (B. J. Zimmerman, 1990, p. 11).
Incorporating a learning ePortfolio with special attention to goal defining
and reflection goes a long way to bolster students’ academic self-concept; it
also helps them recognize the value of interactions, improve their commu-
nication skills, and increase their internal control (Ziegler & Moeller, 2012).
With LinguaFolio and other vetted ePortfolio systems like the European
Language Portfolio (ELP) and the Language Integration Through the ePort-
folio (LITE) of the Linguistic & Cultural Diversity Reinvented (LINCDIRE)
group, learners are guided toward language acquisition and self-regulation.
(Council of Europe, Language Policy Division, 2020; Linguistic & Cultural
Diversity Reinvented, 2020).
To promote learner development, administering short surveys to students
regarding their satisfaction with the interface and tools, their sense of growth,
and their growing efficacy in language learning provides invaluable feedback
to both students and faculty. Elsewhere, a short questionnaire or end-of-lesson
classroom assessment technique (CAT), which is a simple, non-graded and
anonymous in-class activity, supplies a handy snapshot of how things are going
in the class (Angelo & Cross, 1993). In the online environment, these can be
78  Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching

delivered using an LMS quiz, Google Forms, Socrative, Mentimeter, Kahoot,

Quizlet, or similar apps. Surveys tell learners that the instructor cares about
them and their learning, which increases learner engagement and promotes
autonomy. Asking learners to think about the technologies and media in the
course may prompt an awareness that, besides linguistic and cultural knowl-
edge, they are also acquiring important digital literacies and learning skills.
Such surveys, of course, also funnel into the central and ongoing evaluation
process of the entire course.There are more formal tools, like the Online Self-
regulated Learning Questionnaire (OSLQ), developed by Barnard, Lan, To,
Paton, and Lai (2009) to measure SRL at both the start and finish of a course
should such quantification be sought.
The major LMSs collect user data on student and faculty activity in the
system. Student user data provides an optic on student behavior for praise
or remediation. For example, a student who only logs onto the system
once a week—and then only to take a test—is not showing effective
learning behaviors. Language educators know steady language acquisi-
tion arises from regular exposure to and production of the language. By
looking at user data and statistics in the LMS and gathering information
from other integrated learning materials (publisher online materials, for
example), instructors can better guide learners toward more effective strat-
egies and behaviors. However, some learners may find activity tracking to
be “creepy” or invasive (Jutting, 2016). Thus, it is a good practice to explain
to them how and why their student data is captured and reviewed and how
it is kept safe. Collecting, reviewing, and giving feedback based on student
data is a powerful tool to improve teaching and learning online and to help
learners grow in SRL and autonomy (Rientes, Lewis, Mcfarlane, Nguyen,
& Toetenel, 2018).

Developing the Learning Management

System (LMS) Interface
Readability and Usability
Whichever LMS or platform is used, background choices to improve read-
ability, usability, and accessibility are part of the development phase. A student’s
first encounter with an online course is usually text-based. Studies by Rello
and Bigham (2017) show that interfaces that are designed for people with
dyslexia and/or other neurological reading issues positively impact all readers.
There are a variety of ways to address dyslexia on webpages (Rello, Kanvinde, &
 Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching  79

Baeza-Yates, 2012). Of particular interest to online language instruction are the

studies regarding linguistic differences in dyslexia and written word processing
across languages. English has what Rello et al. (2012) call an opaque or deep
orthography where spelling and sound are anything but consistent. Languages like
Spanish, Italian, and Finnish, however, have a transparent or shallow orthography
that make their decoding (i.e., comprehension) process less difficult. Developers
of courses in these transparent languages might consider using more of the second
language (L2) throughout. For non-alphabetic languages like traditional Chinese
writing, neurological reading processing takes place in a different part of the
brain from that of alphabetic languages. Hence, dyslexia manifests differently
and warrants adaptations that are suited to that language, language family, or
writing system (alphabetic, logographic, etc.).With regard to the content, Rello
et al. (2012) further note that it is not just transparency that lessens read-
ability, but also complicated syntax and phrasing. Learner orientation materi-
als, how-to guides, and instructions should all use clear, easy-to-digest writing,
regardless of language.
Color and contrast also affect on-screen readability. Recent studies show
warm backgrounds (light yellow, orange, peach, or cream) with a black or off-
black font improve readability and reading speed for all online readers (Rello &
Bigham, 2017). High contrast pairs (white/black or black/white) make words
seem to vibrate and should be avoided (Rello et al., 2012).The British Dyslexia
Association (2012) advises sans serif font, monospacing, and roman fonts with
font sizes from 12–14 points for online reading. Font size 18 is deemed optimal
by other experts (Rello & Baeza-Yates, 2013, 2015; Rello, Bautista, Baeza-Yates,
Gervás, Hervás, & Saggion, 2013a; Rello, Pielot, Marcos, & Carlini, 2013b).
Research varies on spacing within and between words. Regular (0%) spacing
inside a word and greater spacing between words is preferable to condensed
spacing within a word and regular spacing between words. Paragraphs should be
offset by at least one empty line, even if there is only one line of text. Narrow
columns are to be avoided, whereas intermediate-sized columns (+/-44 char-
acters) are better than longer-sized ones (66 > characters) for struggling online
readers (Rello et al., 2012).
When creating text-based content online, consistent formatting is optimal,
which applies to the font size and type (e.g., bold, italic) as well as to the colors
used for specific tasks (e.g., orange background for resources, cream back-
ground for learner-learner interactions, and light green background for assess-
ments). Mixing more than three fonts is not recommended. Users navigate
sites better, find resources more quickly, and trust their learning more deeply
when typefaces and fonts are well chosen and consistent. Font sizes and the
80  Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching

use of boldface, italics, and underlining, too, should become consistent signals
for the entire site, from module to module, even from course to course in a
multi-course program. Underlining, especially with blue font, indicates hyper-
links. Large font sizes (over 18 points) typically indicate headings and titles. An
average-sized font (usually around 12 points) is used for the main text, with
smaller sizes for footnotes (under 12). Italics are hard to read on screen and in
colored text, unless the text is a very dark color that contrasts with the back-
ground. Using all caps should be avoided since it signals shouting in the short
message service (SMS) world (i.e., texting) and mid-sentence capitalization
slows down reading, as does centered text rather than right or left justified
text (Pappas, 2015). Whatever formatting is chosen, links should be in a single
color and style, like the underscored blue of most word-processing utilities.
A bolded or all caps typeface can, however, be used to indicate due dates for
assignments. All visual signals should remain as consistent as possible.
Although text may be a critical medium for delivering course content, two
facts should be kept in mind:

1. Today’s learners are less likely to read lengthy texts and may actually be put
off by explanations, instructions, and announcements that are overly long
in the text-based medium (Burns, 2019).
2. The primary instructional goal of an online language course is the
language and/or content learning in the language.

Regarding the first fact, the reading load of an online course often imposes a
heavy literacy burden on learners who must read for both content and everything
else (e.g., instructions, course navigation directions, guides to using technologies
and interfaces, task and assignment models, rubrics and their criteria, etc.). Much
of what is conveyed visually in a face-to-face course can be converted into
images, videos, screencasts, and various interactive modalities for online delivery.
For the second item, the majority of the learning activities should be in the
target language.The section below on developing interaction and course activi-
ties using audiovisual and interactive means shows how developers and teachers
can avoid overly long text-based instructions and move quickly and effectively
to presenting content that is comprehensible for learners in the L2.

Common LMSs
In Chapter 1, common LMSs and platforms were presented in detail. Most
of these are user friendly and relatively simple for faculty and students to use.
 Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching  81

The majority of secondary and postsecondary institutions adopt a common

LMS that is primarily geared for their traditional, brick-and-mortar courses.
These platforms allow instructors to create an online grade book, an online
assignment drop box, and online discussion boards to supplement in-class
discussions, to name a few of the more common features. With traditional,
brick-and-mortar classes, LMSs are sometimes used for administering tests and
quizzes so as not to take up valuable class time. In order to use an LMS for
effective online delivery, however, some rethinking and retooling needs to take
place. For example, even though the overall look of the LMS is usually deter-
mined by the institution, most LMS interfaces allow customization of banners,
layouts, and other details. It is important to choose a consistent appearance and
structure that is intuitive for learners and easily adopted by other faculty who
may teach the course in the future. In this chapter, the authors mainly refer to
Blackboard and D2L Brightspace due to their access to and familiarity with
them, and not as a recommendation of either.
Upon creating or copying a course, an LMS like Blackboard prompts
the course creator or person modifying the copied course to customize it.
Blackboard organizes information by buttons (or tabs) and folders as shown
in Figure 2.1.
In Figure 2.1, the instructor’s Control Panel on the left offers a
“Customization” tab. It includes student enrollment (self or automatically
through the institutional student information system), access for outside guests

Figure 2.1  Screenshot of a standard Blackboard control panel and launch page for developing
a course.
This image is the property of Blackboard. Printed with permission from Blackboard.
82  Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching

or observers, properties (colors, button styles, arrangements, labels), and tool

availability. The tool availability sub-tab gives access to tools such as blogs,
journals, discussion boards, e-mailing options, as well as institutionally avail-
able packages like VoiceThread (a text-, audio-, and video-based discussion
board), Kaltura (a repository to post and share videos), Zoom (an online meet-
ing space), and SoftChalk (a content authoring platform). The complete list
of available tools is located under the “Course Tools” tab (second under the
Control Panel options in Figure 2.1). Developers should be aware of their
options in order to decide early in the development phase which ones to
incorporate into their courses. The learning goals should always drive the
choice of the tools and media, and those that are the most effective and effi-
cient for achieving those goals should be chosen.
Still within the “Customization” tab, under the “Teaching Style” sub-di-
rectory of styles, developers can choose from among various teaching
approaches such as case studies, constructivism, experiential learning, proj-
ect-based learning, cooperative learning, guided discussions, etc. Choosing
any one of these results in a learning interface designed for that style and
its subsets. Figure 2.2 shows the communicative teaching style based on Web 2.0
(i.e., interactive web activity). It divides activities into discussion, sharing,
and meeting up. It contains folders for course materials and for a wiki,
which is a collaboratively created website on a particular topic. Students
can easily access recent activity in the course, review earlier materials and
instructions, and work with a course mentor such as a teacher, teaching
assistant, or tutor. They have access to all their course tools and to a “Start
Here” button that links to the all-important Getting Started documents

Figure 2.2  Screenshot of a Blackboard Web 2.0 “Focus on Communication” format.

This image is the property of Blackboard. Printed with permission from Blackboard.
 Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching  83

folder. It should be clearly visible from the launch page. The “Start Here”
button is described below.
The developer can use or modify any one the prepopulated styles or build
a course style from the bottom up. Figure 2.3 shows a screenshot of a French
course. The Blackboard interface has remained stable over many years, allow-
ing for easy transfer from year to year, course to course, and instructor to
instructor. Blackboard tends to look the same from year to year if one keeps
the same theme and style.
The left side shows links/buttons for the major sections of the course.
Announcements are topmost as the first line of communication with students.
Announcements, reminders, events, invitations, and the like are created by
the faculty. Announcements can be sent simultaneously as an e-mail through
the composition window. The announcements button is followed by one of
the most important elements of an online course interface, the “Start Here”
button that locates all the “Getting Started” information, training, and resources
a new online student needs to get off to a strong start. Figure 2.3 shows an
additional “HELP!” label for students to see that this button is their “first line
of defense” for the course. It replaces the immediacy of a classroom response
to questions and confusion. The Getting Started module offers a clear over-
view of the interface and the curriculum and often includes links to the syl-
labus and course calendar. The syllabus and calendar may reside under the
Course Documents button or under a separate button. Blackboard allows as
many buttons as needed. Still, for usability, five to eight buttons with logi-
cally nested subsets is “cleaner.” The Start Here button lets students quickly

Figure 2.3  Screenshot of a Blackboard launch page for a novice-level online French course.
This image is the property of Blackboard. Printed with permission from Blackboard.
84  Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching

access a comprehensive course overview. The rest of the buttons should be

self-evident. Most LMSs offer a similar interface. Both the D2L Brightspace
and Blackboard platforms allow users to create their own names for folders
that appear in the left-hand navigation bar. They both also allow nested fold-
ers, which means that there can be subfolders under main folders. However,
in Canvas, an add-on like Atomic Curriculum Tools is needed display folders
and modules as if they are nested. Most of the other common LMSs that are
available on the market today offer similar tools and capabilities to the ones
described above.

Mobile Learning
Students today “live” on their phones. Many LMSs have a mobile option and
some entirely mobile LMSs do not offer a computer-based option. In most
schools, however, the computer is the base device. Since students want at least
some of their learning to be mobile, developers should explore how course
materials display on devices like smartphones and tablets (Masterson, 2019).
Phones, more often than tablets, may not display everything properly. It is
particularly important to let students know which parts of the course do not
port well to mobile devices. Based on their market penetration with the tar-
geted learner population, course delivery on various mobile operating systems
should be tested by the developer. These include Google’s Android, the Apple
iOS, Bada by Samsung, and less so, the Blackberry and Windows Phone oper-
ating system, and for the large Chinese market, Huawei’s Harmony. Providing
students with a specific icon to indicate activities that are suitable (or unsuit-
able) for mobile learning will help guide learners to the appropriate devices
for their online learning.

Developing the Course Structure

Choosing the curriculum and developing the overall course structure gener-
ally occur during the design phase. Secondary and postsecondary schools often
depend on departmental or divisional curriculum, policies, and procedures for
determining the direction of their course structure. The State University of
New York (SUNY) provides its SUNY Learning Network (SLN) as a frame-
work for course development in their course management system. The SLN
includes advice and strategies for faculty to promote student success. It specifies
that the sequence, quantity, and pacing of learning activities can be problematic
in online courses (Shea, Pickett, & Pelz, 2003). Still, much of the information
 Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching  85

is similar to what is normally found in a face-to-face course syllabus and

calendar.Where an online course is expected to stay on pace with an on-cam-
pus course or program, the number of units, materials, and other learning
resources usually stay the same and they should coincide to ensure program
coherence. Nevertheless, online course developers need to review the existing
sequencing, quantity, and pacing of course materials to adapt and scaffold them
for the specificity of online delivery.
What follows describes setting up basic course information and orientation
material including: (1) choosing the number of units and their pacing within
time parameters; (2) selecting or creating instructional materials and appro-
priate technologies, with a special focus on video and interactive media; (3)
developing interactions, course activities, and assessments; and (4) finding or
creating resources and ancillaries for student success.

Basic Course Information

Presenting a course overview and student orientation occurs in brick-and-
mortar courses the first week of instruction. With online courses that are syn-
chronous (i.e., those with pre-set, real-time class meetings or interactions),
instructors can conduct the orientation session during the first class meeting.
However, for courses that are delivered asynchronously (i.e., anytime/anyplace
instruction without any required real-time class meetings or interactions),
there is no predetermined, first-day class meeting for this to take place. In
its absence, developers must carefully craft the introductory and basic course
information folders or modules.
A strategy supported in Quality Matters training is the Getting Started
module with its “Start Here” tab or button mentioned above. It links to an
overview of the entire course. Its landing page should clearly show where
and how to start the course. It should also offer access to information on
the course structure and content, including the course overview, course
goals, expected learning outcomes, the types and timing of assessments with
the criteria for grading, the location of the learning units or modules, and
the training materials (or links to them) for all of the technologies and
media that are used in the course, as recommended by Quality Matters in
their standards. A video tour of the course works well to show the whole
structure and layout of the course and to help students locate all of the
course resources and ancillaries. Another video can be designed to show-
case effective online learning skills and SRL strategies. Moreover, “bread-
crumbs”—the secondary navigation system that is displayed at the top of the
86  Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching

webpage and that shows a user’s location on the website—should be available

for learners to retrace their clicks and thus avoid getting lost in cyberspace.
Shea et al. (2003) noted, “faculty … create course-level and section-level
overviews of documents with the goal of reminding students where they are
and what they will be working on throughout each section of the course”
(p. 9). Redundancy of information allows learners more than one avenue to
pursue their learning. Learners should be able to locate information in more
than one place, without getting confused or sidetracked. For example, infor-
mation on course grading may be found in the “Getting Started” module, on
the syllabus, and in a video orientation for the course.
Online learners need ready access to the instructor’s contact information,
office hours, and response time expectations. These topics are addressed
more fully below. Online students also need information and access to sup-
port services, such as technical help, which are best delivered in their own
folder or module. These resources can be located under the “Start Here”
button, reside in a course resources folder or module, or be in their own
folder or module. There should be a list of support services for the LMS,
publisher materials, software, and applications, with links to their website
support pages (e.g., technical help, live help, etc.), including their contact
e-mail addresses, social media connections, and phone numbers wherever
possible. Frequently asked questions (FAQs) and flowcharts for potential
problems and their resolution are also recommended. Delays due to tech-
nical issues negatively impact a learner’s progress and engagement in the
course. While the instructor’s primary role is to address instructional issues,
not technical ones, students should be instructed to copy the instructor on
requests for technical support should a major problem arise. Developers
and faculty are advised to keep such inquiries in a special folder for the
end-of-course evaluation in light of revising the support guides, FAQs, and
troubleshooting pages.
In courses with learners in the Novice to Intermediate Low, or the A1–A2
range, posting orientation materials, welcome messages, and course informa-
tion documents, as well as general policies and procedures in the first language
(L1) is generally appropriate. Moreover, using the L1 for materials shared
across multiple courses and languages may be the most effective approach. Still,
developers might consider providing the instructions for course routines and
standard operating procedures in the target language with supportive visuals.
Their introduction and consistent use throughout a course reduces the cog-
nitive load that arises when shifting between the L1 and the L2. For learners
with special needs, it is “very cognitively inefficient for them to move back
 Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching  87

and forth between languages” and “too much of the students’ first language
will demotivate their second language learning” (Virginia Department of
Education, 2017, p. 27). The same document suggests an important strategy
for accommodating language learners with special needs, which also is valid
for online learners:

[S]etting up routines and procedures in the beginning of the year before

transitioning to target language, will help with the process of moving from
English to target language instruction. As you transition into the target
language, students may feel less anxious about what is expected of them if
care is given to scaffold the process… Just assuming that the students can
figure out the management without explicit support—or thinking that
you cannot do classroom management in the target language—are not
reasons to avoid doing it.
(p. 27)

Upper-level courses designed for Intermediate Mid, or B2, learners and above
should consider providing introductory information in the L2. Other options
and opinions are discussed below and in Chapter 3, but where it concerns content
learning activities, according to the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign
Languages (ACTFL), they should be delivered in the L2 at least 90% of the time,
regardless of learner proficiency level (ACTFL, 2017). It is up to instructors to
make the L2 comprehensible for learners at each level of proficiency
(see Chapter 3 for more information on teaching online communicatively).

Learner Orientation
Depending on the design plan and location of the student body, learner ori-
entation may take place on campus or online. If it is delivered online, it can
be in a synchronous, asynchronous, or mixed mode. For flipped and blended
learning, orientation is less of an issue than in entirely online environments
because students spend at least some time having face-to-face interactions
with their instructors on campus, where learner orientation to the course
will normally take place. Some institutions offer an orientation module for
all online learners, regardless of discipline, others are created by specific
academic units or by individual course developers. These are often institu-
tional decisions that are determined in the analysis and design phases. Once
the type of orientation is decided or created, student access to its materials
can be available within a welcome message, course announcement, or in its
88  Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching

own “orientation” folder or module; however, it is preferable to locate this

important information across all three of these areas. Student access to the
entire course is advised at least two to three weeks before the start date, if
possible. At some institutions, however, student access is not available until
the first day of classes. In these instances, a welcome e-mail prior to the start
date that presents the course structure and expectations to learners is even
more important.
Ideally, the welcome e-mail should be delivered seven to ten days before the
official course start date. A short instructor introduction, some of the getting
started and basic course information, and/or links to them are standard. Links
have an added benefit of prompting learners to visit the actual course to dis-
cover its structure and the location of important information before the offi-
cial start date, if allowed. This welcome message or e-mail sets the tone for the
course. Addressing each student by name and asking them for their preferred
names and pronouns fosters inclusivity and acceptance from the beginning. It
also models inclusive netiquette, that is, the protocols for civil communication
online (e.g., not using all caps, which is considered shouting online). Since
enrollments tend to stay open for the week preceding and often at least a week
after the official start date, instructors should consult their roster daily to iden-
tify newly enrolled students. Developing an e-mail message or announcement
for late enrollees can relieve the stress on faculty during those first hectic few
weeks of a course.
Location of the folder or tab for student orientation materials should be
immediately visible and readily accessible to the learners as soon as they enter
the online course. If an orientation module is required, a graded assignment
emphasizes that learners are responsible for its content. An interactive video
(using H5P, Camtasia, Snagit, or the like) can provide the orientation informa-
tion with integrated pop-up quizzes. Orientation minimally includes:

●● A welcoming and personal introductory video or text biography on behalf

of the primary instructor;
●● A description of the online/blended/flipped learning environment for the
present language course;
●● A list of the technical skills the students need for the course and where to
get training or support if needed;
●● Advice on the study skills that the course requires and how to improve
such skills;
●● Advice on workload management and indicating when to contact the
instructor, a tutor, or a help center for timely support;
 Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching  89

●● An explanation of how best to communicate for course purposes, including

netiquette and timeliness in group work;
●● Location of resources and support, including technical help and other
campus resources;
●● A library of resources on issues affecting online learning, such as time
management, computer accessibility, and willingness to reach out with
questions, etc.

Several LMSs, like Blackboard, D2L Brightspace, and Canvas offer course
announcements as a landing page, tab, and window. With Blackboard, there is a
selection option in its announcement creation window to send the announce-
ment out as an e-mail to all registered students. Selecting this option would
kill two birds with one stone by providing a landing page announcement and
sending out the welcome letter at the same time. For instructors with large or
multiple class sections, such an option offers a significant time savings.

Modules and Pacing

Chapter 1 noted a warning by Bates (2019) that experts in a field may under-
estimate the amount of time online students need to process instruction and
transfer learning experiences from short- to long-term memory. For online
language learning, this caveat is all the more important. Chapter 3 will delve
more deeply into this area.
Shea et al. (2003) urge developers and faculty to recognize the importance
of establishing time parameters. The SLN course management system pro-
vides standard documents to help set such parameters. It provides preformat-
ted course schedules for learning activities, topics, assignments, and due dates
that are recorded. Within units or modules, a “What’s Due?” document is set
up and brought to learners’ attention. Moreover, clear start and end dates, with
reminders, help keep students on track and all assignment documents should
offer clearly visible due dates and reminders. Many LMSs offer a feature for
faculty to activate and deactivate learning modules to manage the pace of a
course or to ensure mastery learning through the adaptive release of lessons
or modules. SoftChalk and similar lesson/module builders allow developers
to “drip” lessons based on built-in assessments. Similarly, the D2L Brightspace
platform allows instructors to hide lessons or modules until learners are ready
for them.
The backward design phase of development generally directs how to divide
up the online course, the number of modules, and the number and extent of
90  Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching

lessons within modules. Much depends on whether there will be a tight or

loose structure to the course. Bates (2019) uses the term, “tight,” to indicate “a
very strong structure, with specific topics assigned for study at particular points
in the course, with student work or activities tightly linked” (p. 0, section
11.9.1). Basic language courses often need this kind of structuring. Upper-
level courses, however, may benefit from a loose structure where it is “part
of the student’s responsibility to manage and organize their study, or [where
they have] some choice about what they study and the order in which they
do it, so long as they meet the learning goals for the course” (p. 0, section
11.9.1). He concludes that the decision between tight or loose structuring also
depends on the level of student self-regulation and the faculty/student ratios.
The more students there are, the less time there will be to provide the individ-
ualized support and feedback needed in a loose structure. The more students
need help developing SRL, the more time will be needed to dedicate to that
aspect of their learning.
Online learners, in general, thrive where there is consistency. Whatever
number of units or modules chosen for a given course, keeping each one
more or less the same duration with a similar flow of activities develops a
rhythm for student workflow and therefore lets them manage their learning
more effectively. Where a module demands more time or a different work-
flow, its change of pacing and scheduling should be highlighted. For each
module, an advance organizer, which is a visual representation of the con-
tent that will be covered, helps learners to see the big picture. This practice
is especially helpful for holistic learners, but also allows all learners to grasp
the logical flow of the online lesson or module. A checklist of the learning
objectives that correspond to specific tasks and assessments motivates learn-
ers to achieve the targeted outcomes. Additionally, by providing guidelines,
performance expectations, and rubrics for each activity, learners are primed
to reflect on their learning in a timely fashion. Using LinguaFolio, or another
ePortfolio, structures the sequencing of learning objectives and encourages
reflection. See Chapter 1 for more details on how to use LinguaFolio in an
online language class.
In a brick-and-mortar classroom, the class meeting schedule is predeter-
mined. This rarely happens in online courses where learners interface with
learning opportunities more individually. Still, set time frames and clearly
defined deadlines are essential for students to engage in good online time
management. Indicating what is due, when, as well as how to break down tasks
into smaller chunks helps online learners begin to take responsibility for their
own learning.
 Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching  91

Some online language courses are set up for anytime/anyplace instruction.

This allows advanced learners to work ahead, which could free up their time
to work on other classes. While online instructors may allow students to work
ahead, they are strongly advised not to allow students to fall behind. Once
learners disengage from the online course, it becomes very difficult for them
to catch up. The workload may seem to build up more quickly in an online
course than in traditional, brick-and-mortar classes because online learners
receive their instruction online (via instructional videos, podcasts, readings,
etc.) in addition to figuring out and completing all of their assignments, assess-
ments, and interactions online. The practice of not allowing students to submit
work late—except for documented emergencies—may help keep students on
pace and minimize online course attrition rates.
Where traditional students often meet up or communicate with each other
outside of the classroom, an online course can offer weekly socialization for
students and an outlet for addressing issues and problems. A course developed
with compensatory strategies (e.g., weekly cafés, jam sessions, Twitter feeds,
class Facebook chats, synchronous session group notes, etc.) provides powerful
alternatives to the conversations that occur both within and outside of the
brick-and-mortar classroom. If such opportunities are created for an online
class, reminders and links announcing their availability should also be included
on calendars and checklists, in module and assignment instructions, and in
weekly announcements. It is vitally important to address academic and social
issues that are raised in a timely fashion.The authors note that the current gen-
eration of students tend to use their social media to arrange study groups and
to use back channels for information exchange. They should be encouraged
to do so because these practices foster social presence in the course and vali-
date students’ need for connectedness to one another. Moreover, they should
be urged to invite classmates to join, especially if there are older generation
students who are less accustomed to such digital sociability.

The Course Calendar

The online course calendar is an important visual tool that serves as a reminder
of key course assignments, assessments, and interactions. Where multiple links
to the calendar information are accessible, care needs to be taken to ensure
that identical dates, deadlines, and the like are maintained. Except in extraor-
dinary circumstances, calendars should remain stable throughout the course.
Consistency and predictability are absolutely essential to learner success in the
online learning environment. A checklist of what is due also has great value for
92  Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching

online students. Some LMSs offer checklist functions for tasks and deadlines.
Canvas, among others, allows the developer to indicate if an assignment is
required.The DesignPLUS product from CIDI Labs provides “progress bars”
that display the percentage of completed assignments in a module for some
LMSs. Publisher sites also typically furnish a running list of all work to be
done as well as the upcoming due dates. Many publisher sites even allow
instructors to add calendar items and due dates for work outside the textbook
and workbook materials. As such, it could be used as the single calendar for
the entire course. If the main calendar is kept on the LMS, it should link out
to or embed any other calendars not integrated into its interface. Whatever
other materials and sites are chosen (e.g.,TalkAbroad, FlipGrid,VoiceThread,
Padlet, Edmodo, NearPod, etc.), a checklist that includes their tasks, steps,
due dates, and the like should be integrated with all other assignments and
be clearly marked and readily accessible in the LMS. It is easy for students
to get “lost” when there are too many moving parts to a course. Moreover,
they should not waste time searching for where to locate course content and
interactions.
Online learners are often frontloaded with a heavier learning load than
their on-campus peers. They have to learn how to navigate the course and
the course technologies, all the while learning new content in the L2. In the
first few weeks, they face a significant cognitive load and instructors should
provide them with sufficient processing time to figure out the technical
details (e.g., the LMS, online resources and applications, etc.), learn the logic
behind the LMS interface, understand the course layout, as well as to learn
the new content in the L2. By the third unit or module, the average learner
will have settled into the groove and should be able to handle more content
exposure, new skill acquisition, even the introduction of new resources. Still,
the time to engage in new skills and technologies must be factored in at all
times with that of content instruction so as not to be detrimental to the pri-
oritized learning targets.
The Center for Advanced Second Language Studies (CASLS) offers a plan-
ning document along with its calendar and pacing guide in the LinguaFolio
Blended Unit Planner that accompanies the LinguaFolio Online (LFO) site
and materials (Figure 2.4). It can be used to organize an entire course and then
be reused for each unit or module under development.
Step 1 gathers the basic unit information such as the title of the activity, its
duration, and the student proficiency level. Step 2 clearly follows a backward
design process (see Chapter 1 for information on backward design). Targeted
learning goals derive from a broad concept that frames the entire lesson or
 Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching  93

Figure 2.4  CASLS LinguaFolio planning guide template (Center for Applied Second Lange
Studies [CASLS], 2015).
Reprinted with permission.

module and toward which the learners are being guided throughout. The
contextualized assessments elicit evidence of learner performances across
a variety of integrated learning activities and practice that, all together,
sufficiently scaffold student learning so that they can confidently and suc-
cessfully execute the final assessment. The full LinguaFolio Blended Unit
Planner explains how to integrate the ACTFL World-Readiness Standards
(National Standards Collaborative Board, 2015), choose and use appropriate
Can-Do Statements (NCSSFL-ACTFL, 2017), create integrated perfor-
mance assessments (IPAs)—which are assessments that connect to class-
room instruction across three modes of communication (they are detailed
in Chapter 5)—and provide the types of interactions needed for students to
demonstrate their learning outcomes via the LinguaFolio Online platform.
Step 3 (not included in Figure 2.4) involves various levels of questioning
and thinking, similar to the PACE model that is discussed in Chapter 3.
For Step 4, the day-to-day template, the authors have provided Table 2.1,
adapting the CASLS Unit Planner to specify assistive technologies used for
online delivery.
94  Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching

Table 2.1  Day by day module planning

Big Can-Do:

Content:

Activities & Assessments

Connection to final
assessment (rubric
Day/ Can-Do Student criterion, appropriate Feedback Technologies or
Date Statement(s) task(s) descriptor) tool(s) apps needed

*Note. Adapted from the CASLS Unit Planner (CASLS, 2015).

Permission granted.

The CASLS Blended Unit Planner includes a model lesson and descrip-
tions of best practices for unit creation and delivery.The authors will return to
this model in the section below on learner-content interaction.

Developing Interaction and Course Activities

The literature on online language education cites three types of interac-
tions arising from the Community of Inquiry (COI) theory (Garrison,
2006a, 2006b; Saadatmand, Uhlin, Hedberg, Åbjörnsson, & Kvarnström,
2017). According to Anderson (2016), carefully chosen interactions lead to
“presence” in the COI Model. Its three main actors are the learner, the
instructor, and the content. Thus, the interactions are: learner-instructor,
learner-learner, and learner-­content. As discussed in Chapter 1, good design
attends to the three presences—teaching, cognitive, and social—to create a
community of inquiry. Interactions can be mapped onto presences to visu-
alize how they all work together, as shown in Figure 2.5.
In the diagram below, Figure 2.5 is a visual shorthand for thinking about
the three presences, the three sets of interactions, and their intersections
while developing modules, activities, and assignments for an online course
or module. Anderson (2016) notes what he calls “the enigma of interaction”
 Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching  95

Figure 2.5  Bury’s (2014) community of inquiry model.

CC BY SA 3.0.

based on research that indicates that online learners really do not need more
than one well-designed interaction for learning to take place (p. 1). Yet, for a
language course where language is both content and medium, research shows
that all three are needed: learner-teacher interactions for modeling interper-
sonal communication, practice, and feedback; learner-learner interactions
for negotiation of meaning and interpersonal practice and performance; and
learner-content interactions for direct instruction and interpretive mode work.

The Three Types of Interaction

There are three types of interaction: learner-instructor, learner-learner, and
learner-content. Sometimes interactions may include more than one pair of
actors. Online materials—such as course readings, audio clips, or videos—may
well include built-in interactivity. Including a mix of interaction types is the
best way to optimize online language learning and to build presence in the
online course.

Learner-Instructor Interaction
Learner-instructor interactions take place primarily in the space called teach-
ing presence, which is the learner’s perceptions of feeling connected to the
96  Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching

Figure 2.6  A humanizing avatar (Lachmann-Anke & Lachmann-Anke, n.d.).

Reprinted from Pixabay with permission.

instructor in an online course. Fostering teaching presence is a powerful way

to promote learning. The developer looks for ways to insert teaching presence
into the materials to give a human “feel” to the information being presented.
An instructor avatar (i.e., an iconic image or photo of a real person) could be
included with a tagline to pay attention to the “talking teacher head” when-
ever it shows up in lesson materials, as in Figure 2.6.
Then, each time student attention is called for, a comic book style
speech bubble or a link with written, audio, or video instructions con-
nects the important information to the avatar. It is a simple graphic device,
but it humanizes otherwise dry instructions and descriptions. Additionally,
it visually captures the learner’s attention. It is worthwhile to ask other
online course developers about their ways to humanize screen-mediated
materials, as Jones (2019) recommends in her article on emojis in the for-
eign language classroom.
The following infographic by Pacansky-Brock (Figure 2.7) visualizes many
of the ways discussed in this chapter to humanize an online course and acknow-
ledges the all-important elements of teaching presence, empathy, and awareness.
 Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching  97

Figure 2.7  “How to humanize your online class,” (Pacansky-Brock, 2015).

CC BY 4.0 International License.
98  Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching

Kumar and Skyrocki (2016) list eight ways to humanize an online course and
develop teaching and social presence through learner-instructor interactions:

●● Set a warm, welcoming tone right in the beginning of the course to con-
nect with students.
●● Do ice-breaking activities to create a community of learners; ask students
to share personal profiles, bios, stories, and other examples of personal
information.
●● Offer a “live” orientation session through Skype or any other web con-
ferencing tool so students have the opportunity to interact with the
instructor in real time.
●● Provide a discussion forum for non-course-related social interactions.
●● Encourage peer-to-peer support.
●● Incorporate group work.
●● Provide a personal response to students on their personal profile.
●● Encourage students to contact the instructor after digesting feedback
on their assignments or discussion postings; a short note to contact the
instructor with any questions leads students to feel comfortable seeking
additional help.

The authors have used Learner Support Agreements (LSA) and learning con-
tracts with students in online, blended, and flipped classrooms. The essential
elements in an LSA, or contract, line up with the grading scale. After hav-
ing determined their current proficiency level, the students are asked to set
realistic end-of-course targets. At the end of the semester, the authors use
the contracts with their embedded grading scale to compute the final grade,
which students have indicated that they appreciate. As part of the bidirectional
contract, learners are also asked to write up targets for the instructor to work
toward throughout the course. This practice promotes their buy-in into the
process. By using LFO, learners actively see their progress on the proficiency
wheel. Figure 2.8 shows an imaginary student’s proficiency wheel from the
LFO platform. Learners can see their growth over the duration of the course
as the color of their level fills in.
If the course contains synchronous interactions, there will be occasions
for learner-instructor, real-time interactivity, especially when virtual classroom
sessions are scheduled into the curriculum via Blackboard Collaborate, Adobe
Connect, or some other virtual meeting room/webinar tool like Zoom or
Google Meet. The use of synchronous sessions is determined in the design
phase, but the timing, frequency, placement, and content are set during the
 Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching  99

Figure 2.8  Screenshot of an imaginary student LFO proficiency overview from the Center for
Applied Second Language Studies (n.d.). My Proficiency Overview.
Permission granted.

development phase. For synchronous sessions, consistency in scheduling lets

students plan ahead for the days and times that they need to be present online.
In the communicative classroom, teacher-led explanations of grammar would
be rare, except when the class collaborates to co-construct a rule or when a
difficult concept warrants additional scaffolding. Synchronous class meetings
in an online class are similar to the flipped classroom, where learners dis-
cover forms, structures, and vocabulary prior to the synchronous class session;
during the class meeting, these items are used to engage learners in target
language communication. Through pre-session comprehension and readiness
checks, the instructor can target misconceptions and common mistakes after
the icebreaker, or even as the icebreaker or warm-up activity. With misun-
derstandings cleared up, students then engage together in real-time commu-
nicative activities in pairs, small groups, and/or as a whole class. Authentic
activities that extend the topic could also be completed during synchro-
nous sessions; and most importantly, these sessions provide opportunities for
immediate teacher feedback, an important feature of learner-instructor inter-
action. Overall, synchronous sessions are well suited to fostering interaction
in an online language course; however, synchronous sessions should rarely be
instructor-dominated lectures.
In asynchronous courses, learner-instructor interactions are medi-
ated through the LMS or through other media and apps like Google Docs,
100  Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching

VoiceThread, FlipGrid, Padlet, and GoReact, among others. Despite the screen
mediation of such interactions, instructors are still able to communicate reg-
ularly and personally with learners to provide feedback and encouragement.
In addition to e-mails and text messages, regular communications may take
the form of whole-class announcements, Twitter tweets, or other social media
options that are current. Great care, however, must be exercised not to expose
personal student information in such messages. Online instructors need to
provide virtual office hours, which, depending on the type of course and the
location of the student body, may include synchronous virtual office hours in
the LMS or via virtual conferencing. Entirely asynchronous discussion boards,
chat rooms, or VoiceThreads can also serve as points of contact for students to
ask for and receive help from their instructors. For students who reside on or
near campus, a physical time and place at the instructor’s office or at an agreed
upon location (e.g., the campus cafeteria)—where such physical interaction is
permitted and feasible—is also a good way to provide instructor support for
online leaners. However delivered, office hours should be regular so that the
learners know when the instructor is available, as online learners are reassured
by that knowledge and access. There should also be a way for learners to con-
nect outside the prescribed hours, with a defined protocol and response time
set forth in orientation and course information documents.
Shea et al. (2003) underscore the importance of facilitating discourse as a
part of teaching presence. They suggest facilitating online discourse by:
1. identifying areas of agreement and disagreement;
2. seeking to reach consensus and understanding;
3. encouraging, acknowledging, or reinforcing student contributions;
4. setting the climate for learning;
5. drawing in participants and prompting discussion; and
6. assessing the efficacy of the process (pp. 11–12).
Item 4 is especially important (setting the climate for learning); and in order
to do so, Shea et al. (2003) advise stress-free, ungraded activities that enable
learners to practice the skills needed for the course. Repeated practice
and rehearsal of learned material and skills consolidate them in long-term
memory. Practice in retrieving or rehearsing information across multiple
episodes promotes consoli­dation and reconsolidation in long-term memory
(McGaugh, 2000; Parle, Singh, & Vasudevan, 2006; Racsmány, Conway, &
Demeter, 2010; Roediger & Butler, 2011).
Shea et al. (2003) suggest the following six strategies for eliciting student
success from whole-class discussions online.
 Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching  101

1. Provide an overview of what is due each week to keep students working

in their cohort and staying interested in the topic.
2. Keep the topics provocative and relevant to students’ lives and studies.
3. Try to reach consensus and understanding; yet, before consensus can arise,
ideas have to be fleshed out and interrogated.
4. Include a grade for participation with clear guidelines for quantity, quality,
and timeliness. Students need to engage early and often (a minimum
amount stipulated). Late students might be asked to summarize the entire
discussion, giving students impetus to participate early!
5. The instructor keeps the discussion on track by guiding without “pontif-
icating” because that stymies discussions.
6. Assign a product based on the discussion that leads them to synthesize,
integrate, and apply what has been discussed (pp. 70-71).

For the language classroom, one might add links to resources for lexical and
grammatical scaffolding. Moreover, the instructor will need to be particularly
attentive to noting cultural differences and nuances to advance the learners’
intercultural competencies while not dominating the conversation.
Besides setting up good discussion routines, the Right Question Institute
offers a compelling technique to get learners, whether face-to-face or
online, to find meaning and relevance in what they are studying. It is called
the question formulation technique (QFT) (Rothstein & Santana, 2011).
It begins with a prompt asking learners to pose questions, individually, in
groups, or as an entire class on a given topic. The next steps in the QFT
build on the learners’ questions, focusing their attention on how questions
and language work in general. After prioritizing their questions, learners
then move from inquiry into action. Their prioritized questions can serve
as the basis for research, a presentational task, setting up a community pro-
ject, etc. The technique builds engagement and trust between learners and
instructors. It promotes learner-learner interaction (see below), bolsters stu-
dent-teacher rapport, and builds a strong online community of inquiry. The
QFT also humanizes learning and promotes learner autonomy. These, and
the other strategies suggested for learner-instructor interaction, make online
learning dynamic, engaging, and humane.

Learner-Learner Interaction
Learners should be afforded plenty of opportunities to practice what they
learn with one another through both written and oral interactions. Discussion
boards and chat features provide spaces for collaborative reading and writing
102  Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching

activities. Social media, like class Twitter feeds or Facebook pages, can also be
used to promote interpersonal writing (Lord & Lomicka, 2009; Miller, Morgan,
& Koronkiewicz, 2018).Yet, attention also needs to be paid in the online envi-
ronment to stimulate oral interactivity. As already noted, some online language
learners harbor the misconception that they will encounter few listening or
speaking activities in the course. It should be made clear from the outset that
online language learning covers all four skills (listening, speaking, reading, and
writing) across all three modes of communication (interpretive, interpersonal,
and presentational). See Chapter 3 for an explanation of the modes of commu-
nication. Chat rooms and virtual cafés offer students the opportunity to engage
in spontaneous language use outside the formal instructional setting, much like
face-to-face class study group meetings outside of class.
Some publisher materials offer student-student activities on their websites.
Vista Higher Learning, Pearson, and Cengage, for example, all provide written
and oral student-student communicative exercises. They also allow instructors
to create and insert their own student-student oral interactions. Note, how-
ever, that orientation materials must stipulate the hardware and software con-
figurations that will be needed for such interactions.
Where the instructor develops student-student interactions, consider-
ations of ease of use, Internet safety, time zones, anonymity, and privacy
issues all arise. Many of these may have already been tackled during the
analysis and design phases. For interactions taking place behind the LMS or
institutional firewall, there tend to be fewer problems. However, with third-
party apps and social networks such as FlipGrid, Padlet, NearPod, GoReact,
Twitter, and Facebook, privacy and other issues must be faced well ahead of
their being deployed. VoiceThread, if integrated into the LMS, ensures pri-
vacy and reliability for asynchronous oral, written, and video interactions.Yet
the problem with it and apps like FlipGrid are that they lack the true nego-
tiation of meaning that takes place in synchronous interpersonal commu-
nications. Perhaps the only way online to ensure truly interpersonal spoken
communication is through a synchronous class setting or using an interface
that offers real-time speaking between students, for example, GoReact. In
virtual classrooms or meeting spaces, like Blackboard Collaborate or Zoom,
there are breakout rooms where students can work together in real time.The
instructor decides on the number of learners per room, placing students in
specific rooms or assigning them randomly. As the students work together
in the breakout rooms, the instructor is able to visit each room to observe
and intervene as needed. The authors use synchronous virtual classroom ses-
sions in their respective LMSs to set up communicative tasks and activities,
 Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching  103

and then they send groups of students into breakout rooms. They observe
and scaffold each group as needed, and finally reconvene the whole class
to share their findings and to provide feedback and further instruction to
the whole class. Individual feedback can be given in real time through the
virtual classroom chat function from the instructor to a single student, to
selected groups of students, or to the whole class. The role of developers is to
lay out which media and interfaces to use, how often, and how they should
be orchestrated to achieve the learning objectives in each module.
Another way to provide learner-learner interaction is through virtual
exchanges, also known as Collaborative Online International Learning
(COIL), teletandem exchanges, or telecollaboration (O’Dowd, 2007). A
course or module can be designed to offer intra- and inter-class exchanges
between students at the same level, or between more advanced students
and those at the lower levels of proficiency. The LMS can be used as well
as various apps, sites, and media, like HelloTalk, the Mixxer, and FlipGrid.
Otherwise, texting and/or calling can be set up once a partner has been
identified (via Skype, WeChat, Viber, Google Meet, etc.). Research shows
that virtual exchanges between learners of two languages benefit both part-
ners (O’Dowd, 2007, 2011; O’Dowd & Klippel, 2006; Telles, 2015). Such
exchanges connect L2 learners with L1 native speakers in sessions during
which they converse in both languages. Discussion topics or learning tasks
are predetermined by participating faculty and are prepared by both sets of
learners. Sometimes, there can be two distinct conversation topics; never-
theless, both sets of partners engage in interpersonal communication with
a native speaker. By listening and speaking in the L1 with an L2 speaker,
the L1 student sees and hears first-hand how the L2 functions when used
by native speakers of the language. Authentic, relevant language tasks pro-
mote linguistic and cultural exchange at a deep level. Moreover, in a tandem
exchange, when a student asks her partner about her family, the response
involves real families in real cultural contexts. In subsequent conversations,
discussions of families and health arise from authentic concern, not just a
practice exercise for specific vocabulary and phrases. Therefore, the commu-
nication that takes place is authentic, more engaging, and memorable.
Yet live language exchange is fraught with potential problems, ranging from
time zone differences and Internet connectivity issues to incompatible aca-
demic and holiday schedules.There are other ways to include authentic L1-L2
dialogue, such as orchestrating conversations with native speaker informants,
graduate students from a target language country, and/or upper-level under-
graduate students of the language. There are also paid services that match L2
104  Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching

students up with well-trained L1 informants for language tutorials. They are

detailed in Chapter 3.
Virtual exchanges can also be used for interpretive work. Before there
was widespread literacy in the modern world, reading was a social activity.
It entailed recitation, gesturing, and dramatic flourishes, as well as asides
for clarification, comment, comparison, and further exploration. The
notion of silent, individual reading is a recent invention. The onset of our
interconnected, virtual world allows us once again to enjoy the benefits
of reading socially. Using a mutually available text as their base and their
phones, a Zoom session or some form of Voice over Internet Protocol
(VoIP), students can be tasked with reading aloud, asking questions, and
co-constructing the meaning of the text. Such interaction builds collab-
orative skills and a feeling of social connectedness online. The L2 learner
also benefits from the scaffolding that the written (or other mediated) text
affords. In virtual exchanges between L1 and L2 partners, the sharing of a
common text in the target language hones interpretive and intercultural
skills with a native speaker.
Learner-learner interactions require appropriate behavior online, also
known as netiquette. As an icebreaker or as part of orientation, students can be
asked to co-create their own netiquette, using a shared writing space or a vir-
tual whiteboard. Such an activity promotes ownership and accountability for
their interactions. Often, this strategy also improves learner engagement and
attitudes toward the class as a community. The developer should make sure
that derogatory or inappropriate emojis or comments, dominating conversa-
tions in the form of excessively long posts in chats and discussion boards, overt
bullying, and microaggressions find their way onto the list. For collaborative
and group work, attention should be paid early on to netiquette, inclusivity,
collaborative dynamics, and the timely sharing of group work. During syn-
chronous sessions and within asynchronous exchanges, faculty should circulate
virtually among groups to nip potentially offensive behaviors in the bud. Most
LMSs archive all written student work, thus leaving proof of transgressions
should it, unfortunately, come to that. Note, however, that breakout rooms in
synchronous live classrooms generally are not recorded.

Learner-Content Interaction
Learner-content interaction refers to the course materials and resources that
the learner engages with to realize the course learning goals. T. D. Zimmerman
(2012) notes that students who “interact with the content more frequently
 Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching  105

achieve higher success in online courses” (p. 162). In learner-content inter-

action, the UDL notion of multiple means of representation and expression
comes into play. What is essential in the online learning environment is the
availability of multimodal and differentiated instructional materials, in other
words, multiple means of representation of the course content. Equally impor-
tant is that learners are able to respond and interact in ways suited to their
learning and circumstances such as through multiple means of expression
(CAST, 2018). Furthermore, the Virginia Department of Education (2017)
document on support for students with disabilities notes that students are
best supported by multimodal instruction with research confirming that all
language learners “benefit from instruction that joins listening, speaking, see-
ing/reading, and writing the language as quickly as possible in the classroom”
(p. 32). What facilitates learning for students with disabilities often promotes
better learning for everyone. In the broadest sense, the entire online course or
module involves learner-content interaction.
Online lessons or modules arising from the QFT and/or project-based
learning (PBL) offer multiple ways for learners to access and express their
learning. The National Foreign Language Resource Center (NFLRC) offers
stellar materials, webinars, and courses on PBL (see Chapter 4). Multimodal
technologies and applications—such as interactive video, FlipGrid, Padlet,
Kahoot, VoiceThread, SoftChalk, and Twine—encourage learner interactions
as suggested in the UDL guidelines. Multiple means of writing and reflec-
tion, including blogs, reflective journals, online discussions, self-reporting sur-
veys, and digital storytelling are effective for interpersonal and presentational
writing. The Virginia Department of Education (2017) report mentions the
use of tactile approaches to language learning (pp. 28, 32). How might an
instructor insert tactile elements into a virtual classroom? Two thoughts come
to mind: (1) ask the learner to assemble common household or classroom
objects (pencils, Legos, paper, post-its) for activities built around their manip-
ulation (drawing, labeling, etc.) and (2) use a virtual whiteboard, a shared
Google Drawings document, or any number of iPad/tablet apps for simulating
tactile activities online.
Interpretive modes of communication lend themselves readily to multiple
means of representation and learner-content interaction. The text should be
presented for optimal visual access and offer multiple representations (font
sizes, annotations, highlighting, cartoon versions, etc.). Although an inter-
pretive mode task may target the written word, for students with dyslexia,
vision problems, or who are auditory learners, they need options for working
106  Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching

through the text whatever their limitations or challenges. A written text can
easily be accompanied by an audio clip or a braille rendition (e.g., using a braille
accessory). Otherwise, software packages like SoftChalk and Twine can break
the text up, annotating it visually and/or aurally. Google Docs, Microsoft Word,
and other text processing packages can also insert comments, images, links, and
sidebars. Moreover, the eComma reading package from the Center for Open
Educational Resources and Language Learning (COERLL), MIT’s Annotation
Studio, or the Hypothesis overlay for social media reading also provide options
for sharing and scaffolding readings for students. For an authentic reading pas-
sage, there should one or more pre-reading activities, such as a group chat on the
topic, vocabulary brainstorming, a discussion of the text’s illustrations to predict
their relationship to the text, and/or outlining the major topic and subheadings
to preview the textual organization and flow. Any new cultural information
that the students will encounter in the text should also be pointed out at the
pre-reading phase. Post-reading exercises and tasks check for comprehension at
the appropriate proficiency level.Thereafter, students can be brought to interact
with the text in engaging ways at their current proficiency level or at the next
higher one. One or more activities should engage the learners in communica-
tive activities related specifically to the text. Relating text to the unit concept
encourages learners to transfer their learning, thus engaging higher order think-
ing skills and literacies, as the LinguaFolio Lesson Planner has suggested.
Listening is a major component in second language acquisition, often treated
as the lesser of the four skills. Conti and Smith (2019) note that listening is the
skill that teachers understand the least, usually have fewer resources for, feel
the least confident teaching, and neglect the most often (p. 4). Further, they
contend that listening is, “important for the development of second language
proficiency. Our brains are wired to pick up language through listening” (p. 1).
Their listening as modeling (LAM) approach reduces the stress of listening by
helping learners focus their listening and hone it as a skill. By offering multiple
listening representations through sound and/or video clips, an online course
directs learners to intentional listening foci. SoundCloud and similar recording
apps allow the instructor to annotate audio clips to focus on specific aspects of
an oral text or they can let the students collectively interrogate and annotate
the samples in a socially mediated way. The Google Add-on Kaizena allows
the same kind of interactivity. Thanks also to screencasting and H5P, sound
clips can be annotated so visual aids like phonetic transcriptions and subtitling,
in either the L1 or the L2, can be added. Numerous academic and commercial
sites offer a wide range of listening clips, often in video format and some-
times with transcripts. The enormous quantity and quality of podcasts, with a
 Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching  107

wealth of topics and accents, is an incredible resource for online educators to

work with online learners on their listening skills.
In summary, when creating various kinds of interactions, the developer can
use the content in Table 2.2 to figure out what kinds of interactions, activity
types, and tools best suit the instructional objectives for a given lesson.

Table 2.2  Interaction types and modes with examples.

Interaction Type Synchronous Asynchronous

Learner - Content Example: Example:
Explain proofreading of a Synthesize module and reading
sentence by annotating and as a written reflection
correcting the error. Can be Shared reading of a common
done with one student, a text.
team, or the whole class.
Group reading of a text. Technology:
Wiki, blog, or forum to post the
Technology: reflection
Writing and drawing tools in Google Doc for the text w/
Blackboard Collaborate, comment feature; Hypothesis;
Zoom, Adobe Connect; other social reading app like
simultaneous use of Google eComma.
Docs.
Learner - Instructor Example: Example:
Schedule a meeting during Receive feedback on an
the instructor office hours. assignment from the
instructor.
Technology:
Online Calendar/Sign Up or Technology:
Doodle poll; Google Meet, Google Docs with comment
Blackboard Collaborate, or feature or chat; Google Docs
Zoom to connect and talk with chat; Laulima (Sakai=LMS
in real time. Grading with feedback
provided); Hypothesis for
written commentary on any
web page. SoundCloud to
annotate audio clips; GoReact
or Voice Thread to annotate
student oral performance or
practice.
Learner - Learner Example: Example:
A meeting to work Peer review of assignment.
collaboratively project.
Technology:
Technology: VoiceThread, Laulima
Blackboard Collaborate + (Sakai=LMS) Forum, Google
Google Docs, Google Meet, Doc with comment/chat.
Zoom, phones.

(Continued)
108  Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching

Table 2.2  Interaction types and modes with examples. (Continued)

Interaction Type Synchronous Asynchronous

Community of Practice Example: Example:
Bring in invited speakers to Join and participate in a forum
the class or social network in the field.
Tutor or teletandem
exchanges. Technology:
Edmodo, Facebook Group,
Technology: Twitter feed.
Adobe Connect, Google
Meet, Zoom
TalkAbroad, Boomalang;
UNICollaboration.
Learner - self Learning contract
Mid-course conference
summary and response
Review of LinguaFolio
reflections and teacher
responses
Course end summary of
meeting personal learning
goals and objectives with
future plans to continue
improving and growing.
*Note. Center for Language & Technology at the University of Hawai`i at Maˉ noa (n.d.)
Permission granted.

The table includes the three main interactions as well as two more: learners
interacting with a community of practice and learners interacting with them-
selves (self-reflection).
Visualizing Bloom’s digital taxonomy is another way to think about and
choose learning interactions with appropriate te(a)chnologies as Figure 2.9
below demonstrates. Many of these apps or sites involve social media and can
be used both synchronously and asynchronously. It is up to the lesson devel-
opers to create the task prompts so that the learners may use them in one or
the other mode, per the activity instructions. Apps that at first blush appear to
be only asynchronous can be turned into synchronous tools by sharing them
over Zoom or connecting simultaneously with the group via phone or any
instant messaging/speaking application.
There are, obviously, myriad ways to create interactions in the online
language learning environment. The developer’s task is to select the type of
interaction, its mode, and the best media and tools to deploy them.The section
that follows takes a deeper look at online tools, applications, and resources that
are appropriate for online language courses and programs.
 Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching  109

Figure 2.9  Bloom’s digital taxonomy for the web (Kharbach, 2020).
CC BY SA 4.0.

Online Course Development Tools and Resources

It is important for developers to consider the various synchronous and asyn-
chronous activities that will stimulate interaction in the course, as noted above.
However, the tools that are used should depend upon the instructional goal
of the activity. Table 2.3 prompts developers to ask the right questions about
who, what, when, and why in the various interactional modes.
Table 2.3  Interaction modes.

What is the When is it Who is involved

Interaction Mode instructional goal? Use/not use? appropriate? in the activity?
Synchronous oral
Synchronous written
Asynchronous oral
Asynchronous written
Combinations
*Note. Adapted from Quinlan (2017)
Permission granted.
110  Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching

Interaction Tools
Some possible tools to stimulate interaction in an online language class
include:

●● Synchronous oral tools: Skype, virtual classrooms, GoReact, virtual tutor-

ing, teletandem sessions
●● Synchronous written tools: “Chats” within Google Docs, Facebook,
“texting” etc.
●● Asynchronous oral tools: VoiceThread, Voki, Lingt, SpeakEverywhere,
LMS Voiceboards, GoReact
●● Asynchronous written tools: Blogs, discussion boards, wikis, social media
(Facebook, Twitter), journaling

In addition to the tools mentioned above, the NFLRC has created a handy
online tool for language educators to select the type of interaction, activity, or
assessment they wish to integrate and the various online tools and resources
that will enable its delivery: the Personal Learning Network Tool (PLN). It can
also be extremely useful in creating and deploying assessments. Another useful
resource is Jane Hart’s comprehensive site with over 2000 online teaching and
learning tools.
The various activities, tools, and their uses and configurations should be
considered as developers create opportunities for learner-instructor, learner-­
learner, and learner-content interaction. An in-depth look at the various tools
and resources that may help instructors create online activities that stimulate
interaction are described below.

Video, Multimedia, and Interactive Media Tools

In order to address the three types of interaction, it is helpful to examine
the te(a)chnologies that may serve as a foundation. This section probes
the use of audiovisual and interactive media for instruction, activities, and
interactions because of their enormous potential and usability in online
language teaching and learning.
Today’s students are visual learners. It is estimated that around 65% of the
population favors visual learning input. Short-term, or working memory, pro-
cesses words and bits of information and stores them temporarily until new
 Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching  111

information replaces them. On average, working memory actively retains

around seven to nine bits of information at a time. More can be held in the
prefrontal cortex by means of chunking and using mnemonic devices before
it moves through the hippocampus and integrates into the long-term memory
network of the cerebral cortex. Images, however, are processed directly and
retained in long-term memory, thus allowing much more information to
come in and stay put. This makes sense since the human brain is wired for
visual information, with 40% of our nerve fibers linked to the retina, which
can register 36,000 visual messages per hour (Jensen, 2008). Researchers in
neuroscience have stated that the processing speed of visuals is 60,000 times
faster than text-based processing, as fast as 13 milliseconds (Potter, Wyble,
Hagmann, & McCourt, 2014; Wilmes, Harrington, Kohler-Evans, & Sumpter,
2008). Visual information positively impacts student learning regardless of the
delivery method. Although the literature notes a general preference for visual
learning among learners of all ages and that the brain processes visual informa-
tion rapidly into long-term memory, teaching to a predominant style (visual,
aural, read/write, or kinesthetic), called “meshing,” does not improve per-
formance or retention as was previously believed (Newtown & Miah, 2017;
Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, & Bjork, 2008; Rogowsky, Calhoun, & Tallal, 2015).
Nevertheless, differentiating instruction through multimodal lessons, practice,
interactions, and assessments maximizes human brain power, but visual infor-
mation is simply processed faster and more deeply. This section focuses mainly
on video and interactive video, although illustrations, infographics, cartoons,
gaming, and virtual reality experiences are also effective visual tools in online
education.
The simplest and most widely used video creation tool in online educa-
tion is the recorded slideshow presentation that uses embedded tools to record
audio narration and annotations to the slides in PowerPoint and Keynote,
the two main slide presentation programs. The capturing feature records the
slide presentation as a video. It can be saved as a video file or as an audio PDF.
Both can be added to the LMS or linked from another service like YouTube
or SlideShare. Google Slides recently added ways to provide voice narration
(Curts, 2019); however, the process of recording audio onto Google Slides at
the time of this writing is still laborious.
Another common video source is YouTube. There are other video serv-
ers like TeacherTube, Daily Motion, Vimeo, and the nearly defunct MySpace.
Other languages and countries have tried to rival YouTube: Vkontacte and
Rutube (Russia), Globo (Brazil), Iqiyi and Bilibili (China), among many
112  Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching

others. YouTube, however, is the most ubiquitous and it overflows with

how-to videos, documentaries, and more in many languages. Developers can
look there for instructional videos for both content and training purposes. For
educators, however, sustainability and copyright issues should be investigated
before relying on any of its videos for a course.
Sometimes a suitable video in the target language cannot be located or
may need to be adapted for a specific course or module. In this instance,
a screen capture with or without audio can be made. Several screen cap-
turing applications offer additional tools to create callouts, lines, arrows, active
highlighting, annotation, captioning, and/or labeling. They can add layers of
information strategically to focus student attention on pertinent informa-
tion. For video or scrolling captures, options exist like Screencast-O-Matic,
with both free and paid versions (see more in Chapter 3); the TechSmith™
gamut of screen and lecture capturing tools (e.g., Jing, a free tool with lim-
ited support); Snagit, an upgraded, wallet-friendly tool with a toolbar app;
Relay for lecture captures; and Camtasia with its full blown, expensive, but
highly performative suite of tools. Kaltura is another video capture and anno-
tation software that some institutions offer to their faculty. Camtasia can even
insert gradable quizzes into a video that interactively link learners to reme-
diation based on their quiz results. In the Apple world, there is QuickTime
(free), iMovie (free with Mac OS), Final Cut Pro, Captur, and Skitch (free
and paid versions) to name but a few. On PCs, one can use the Windows
snipping tool (from the Vista operating system and above), as well as free
and paid software like FastStone Capture, Greenshot, and LightShot among
others. Video and lecture capture systems that produce MP4s and other stan-
dard video formats produce clips that play across devices and are not LMS-
or software-­dependent. Some current capture systems limit interoperability
and transferability, but a new standard called Open Video Capture Standard
will make videos, hardware, and software independent according to the IMS
Global Learning Consortium (n.d.).
Course developers may create original videos for their online courses,
but video production takes substantial time and effort to plan, schedule,
storyboard (i.e., a sequence of images that depict the flow of the video),
write and practice scripts, film, and edit. They entail significant forethought
about language, language pedagogy, and film production. Often, however,
online courses simply need quick, easy, self-made videos to address learners’
immediate needs and to scaffold their learning as questions arise during
the course. Such videos offer an added benefit of feeling personalized and
engaging for learners.
 Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching  113

Using tools like Camtasia, SoftChalk, or H5P, a regular video becomes

interactive by interspersing it with annotations, callouts, pop-up interactive
quizzes, and surveys. Such interactivity ratchets up learners’ attention and
thus improves learning and retention. Besides the time spent crafting how-to
and content videos, developers need to keep in mind how much time the
learners need to process the information. Instructors must be careful not to
overload the students. A more technical issue is that of copyright. Knowing
fair use laws for the United States and any other country from which videos
originate is essential. The Berkeley Language Center Library of Foreign
Language Film Clips, now called Lumière, is an online library of 20,390
clips drawn from 5,615 films in 62 languages. Its contents may only be used
as part of a course at a not-for-profit educational institution by students
registered for credit at that institution. Educators applying for an account
on Lumière should check to see if their institution is on the list of par-
ticipating institutions. If not listed, an educator/institution may apply. The
Lumière platform allows registered educators to create clips and add scaf-
folding to them as well. Despite its technical difficulties, interactive video
is an extremely powerful tool in the online developer’s toolkit. Chapter 3
provides additional examples of how video applications can be used to teach
language communicatively online.
Another use of video as a learning medium in the online environment
is the virtual meeting. Some LMSs, like Blackboard, have virtual classrooms
(Blackboard Collaborate). Adobe offers Adobe Connect®. Other services
like Go-to-Meeting, Google Meet, and Zoom offer whole-class connec-
tions for webinar-like, synchronous interactions. A powerful benefit to vir-
tual encounters is the recording function, which allows the instructor to
capture live class interactions for those who are absent, for review and rep-
etition, or for insertion into other courses. Inserting a recorded virtual class
session allows learners to stop and rewind the instructor and their classmates
as often as needed.
Another pedagogically and communicatively effective use of video is to
capture student participation and performance, for example asking the learner
to create a recording on a smartphone. Some examples of learner videos
include:

●● an interpretation of a listening or reading activity like acting out a story

(interpretive),
●● a conversation with a peer or native speaker partner (interpersonal), or
●● an oral presentation with or without slides or other visuals (presentational).
114  Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching

That recording is then uploaded to the LMS or ePortfolio as performance

evidence. Social and collaborative platforms and applications like VoiceThread,
Padlet, and FlipGrid also capture and share video performances and they pro-
vide easy ways for students to comment and interact with each other’s work.
VoiceThread has a limited free version as well as institutional integrations for
LMSs like Blackboard, Moodle, or Canvas. Padlet has a powerful paid version,
but the free version will suffice for students to share their work. FlipGrid is
free to educators. All three apps have user community groups for sharing
ideas, lessons, tasks, tips, and tricks. It is important to remember that online
students can get sidetracked if they have to navigate to several different web-
sites. For instructors, too, finding students’ work, providing feedback, and
grading work that is dispersed over many sites and applications can unneces-
sarily complicate their instructional mission and overburden their workload.

Textbook Platforms
Many world language publishers have designed their textbook platforms for
online, hybrid, and flipped delivery with calendars, robust workbooks, interactive
activities, synchronous and asynchronous oral work, and secure testing features.
The major North American publishers that produce language learning content are
Cengage, Pearson-Prentice Hall, McGraw Hill, Wiley, and Vista Higher Learning.
They offer products with interactive e-textbooks and workbooks. Several inte-
grate smoothly with LMSs like Blackboard Learn, Moodle, D2L Brightspace,
and Canvas. Moreover, major publishers have excellent resources for student ori-
entation, offer 24/7 online technical support, and ensure student privacy.
Smaller publishing houses such as Georgetown University Press, Breaking
the Barrier, and Wayfair Books also offer online versions of textbooks. In
Europe and Asia, there are Cambridge, Hachette, Santillana (recently acquired
by Vista Higher Learning), and Cheng and Tsui, among others. Other
language courseware distributors provide multimedia materials that are well-
suited—if not specifically designed for—online learning. These include This
is Language, FluentU, and Discovery. This is Language, for example, offers
over 5,000 authentic, unscripted, nicely scaffolded videos in five languages
(English, French, Spanish, German, and Italian) of interactions with young
adults who mirror in age and interests with our diverse language learners.
Prompt Cards are designed for younger students (PK-8). Videos are tagged for
proficiency level and include pre-viewing, viewing, and post-viewing activ-
ities. Numerous formative and summative assessments are offered along with
jigsaw, gap-fill, comprehension, grammar, and vocabulary exercises. Games can
 Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching  115

also stimulate student interactions with the materials and with one another.
Various media companies like Rosetta Stone and Mango Languages, too, offer
online resources for languages. Ready-made materials and activities, like those
offered by publishers, reduce the time and effort of content development.

Media Companies, National Governments,

Libraries, and Museums
Communications companies or organizations like the BBC, TV5Monde,
Radio France Internationale, Deutsche-Welle, the Asia Society, and the
Canadian Government, among others, also offer exciting, up-to-date teaching
resources with easy online access. Such government and telecommunication
giants provide state of the art te(a)chnologies. Several, like TV5Monde, even
have the materials categorized by learner level (according to CEFR scales).
Many offer free language level or proficiency assessment tools. The Virginia
Museum of Fine Arts, the J. Paul Getty Museum, and other national, state, and
local museums and libraries offer free, online educational materials based on
their holdings that may be readily adapted for language learning.

In-House Content Creation

Some online course designers and developers create their own materials inside
the LMS or on another platform like WordPress; however, this approach may
lengthen and complicate development time and effort. The recent upsurge in
open educational resources (OER) means online educators can pick from reliable,
vetted resource pools, such as those listed with Multimedia Educational Resource
for Learning and Online Teaching (MERLOT) and COERLL. EDUCAUSE
in its library links to at least nine OER sites. In addition, sites like the OER
Commons not only provide access to a host of language learning resources, but
also include module builders to splice resources together into coherent suites of
lessons or to offer them as ancillaries. Another distributor of open resources of
potential interest to the world language community is the World Digital Library,
hosted by the United States Library of Congress with support from the United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Several
national educational and library systems like the Bibliothèque Nationale in France
also host high-quality, open teaching and learning resources. However, authentic
resources that are intended for native or near-native users often demand scaf-
folding for L2 lessons or modules. Nonetheless, some are developed for immi-
grants and thus integrate nicely into language classrooms.
116  Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching

Assessment and Assessment Tools

Assessment is a critical element in online course development. In backward
design, it is where the development of a module or lesson begins once
the learning goals have been determined. Assessment of student learning
begins and ends with what students can do with the language. In ePort-
folios like LinguaFolio, student evidence of achieving Can-Do targets is
student-driven, as they select, upload, and self-assess their performance to
the LFO site. The instructor then reviews student input and responds to
students’ self-evaluation with their expertise in second language acquisition
and proficiency-based teaching. Setting up performance-based assessments
takes considerable time and effort in the design and development phases,
more so during integration, when the instructional staff evaluates ePort-
folios and task-based learning assignments and submissions. The extent to
which an online language program will adhere to best practices in profi-
ciency-based course construction and evaluation is normally worked out
during the analysis, design, and development phases. Chapter 5 thoroughly
describes them and reviews the best practices for online course delivery. A
clear recognition of the time needed for assessment creation, correction,
and feedback for the teaching staff, as well as attention to security and
verifiability of student work, are essential. Performance-based assessments,
like Integrated Performance Assessments (IPAs), as opposed to traditional
achievement testing, is often more time intensive, but it supports the goals
of communicative language teaching far better and results in better student
learning outcomes. See Chapter 5 for a detailed description of IPAs.
Once a learning target has been identified, developers choose acceptable
forms of evidence of student learning and the criteria for evaluating the per-
formance. Next, they create the assessment tools and tasks to elicit student
performance. Assessment can be formative, as part of the learning process,
or summative, to determine the extent of learning at the end of a module or
course. Formative assessment includes all types of quizzes, games, and even ses-
sion icebreakers that allow for quick comprehension and skill-growth checks
to determine if the learners are ready to move forward in their learning pro-
cess. For an entirely asynchronous course, as mentioned above, a video can
be interspersed with quizlets using H5P, Camtasia, Snagit, or other video
enhancing tools. These allow the learner to work through an authentic text
or a lecture-like lesson, checking for comprehension at important moments,
as in Figure 2.10 below.
 Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching  117

Figure 2.10  Screenshot of an H5P embedded comprehension check.

CC BY.

For comprehension checks of readings, interactive quizlets can be embedded

into the text itself. Hot Potatoes, a free application, allows developers to create
six different types of interactive quizlets: multiple-choice, short-answer, jum-
bled-sentence, crossword, matching/ordering, and gap-fill exercises. Learners
also benefit from feedback for correct and incorrect answers. Google Forms
can be coupled with Flubaroo to do much the same thing, with the added
value of gathering the points for grading into a spreadsheet. The spreadsheet
data can then be imported into an LMS gradebook. Standard LMSs offer
quizzing features that insert into lessons and modules. Socrative, Mentimeter,
and other online quizzing and polling apps also create embedded quizzes for
readings and PowerPoints. Many institutions have a Respondus account, which
also allows quizzes to be inserted into lesson materials and gathers response
data for the instructor. Go Conqr, Riddle, Edmodo, and Revision Quiz Maker
are other online quizzing and polling apps whose links can be embedded into
calendars, lesson plans, and module instructions. For interpersonal and presen-
tational speaking, listening, and/or writing assessments, some online language
programs opt for synchronous, one-on-one, or group video/microphone ses-
sions. Extempore and GoReact offer oral activity and testing environments for
a minimal per-student fee. They also facilitate the grading process and thus
ease the instructor’s workload. By providing feedback to learners throughout
modules, instructors scaffold student learning more effectively. Larger assign-
ments, tasks, and projects should all include smaller milestones to help students
118  Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching

manage their workload better. Early feedback keeps students on track and
reinforces the criteria for success. Also, through smaller, ongoing assessments,
the instructor can nip common errors in the bud using class announcements,
weekly chats, quick video lessons, links to websites and/or pages, or videos
that offer alternate explanations.
Summative assessment comes at the end of a lesson, unit, or course. It is
meant to determine the extent and quality of learning. Of special note for
online language learning, almost all major publishers offer language work-
books and testing online that coordinate with their materials. This will be
explored more in Chapter 5, which covers the research on effective assessment
practices. Summative assessment should offer a variety of means of expression
for students to display their learning, such as a final project, a class presentation,
an internship report from both the learner and the supervisor, a publishable
article submission, and the like. Assessment, however, should not be confused
with course evaluation, which is part of the ADDIE model and is addressed in
Chapter 1; nevertheless, data drawn from assessments of student learning do
play an important role in overall program evaluation.
While considering assessment and its place in developing self-regulated
learners, the question of the use of online dictionaries, online translators (OT),
and grammar/spelling checkers arises, especially for interpretive and pre-
sentational tasks. All three tools are exactly that: tools. They are part of the
21st century professional toolkit. Moreover, they are free and ubiquitous, and,
frankly, widely used by students and teachers alike! In his research, O’Neil
(2019) confronts the question of how best to deal with them in the language
classroom, including their use for graded activities and tasks. From his research,
he concludes that training in OT raises performance levels on writing tasks
and that banning OT is simply ineffective as a learning tactic (O’Neil, 2019).
He provides web-based learner training tools adaptable to the online learning
venue. Working through such training materials—and then engaging in the
task or activity—takes learners more time and must be factored into their work-
load. Then again, competent use of online dictionaries, spelling and grammar
checkers, and translators, in the long run, improves overall student performance
and will eventually ease student workload and reduce time on task.
Good feedback on assessments is critical for online language learners. Several
factors, some depending on the type of assessment, make the feedback “good.”
The first is providing quick, meaningful feedback on student work. If the assess-
ment or practice routine is formative, then rapid, correct/incorrect responses that
are easily programmed into online exercises or quizzes are effective. Most online
workbooks offer machine-graded practice and quizzes. Quizzing features in the
 Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching  119

LMS or module creator like SoftChalk, H5P, or web-based forms (e.g., Google
Forms) on a website, embedded quizzes on PowerPoints (Mentimeter, Poll
Everywhere), and stand-alone gaming quizzes (Kahoot,This is Language’s Nutty
Tilez, etc.) also offer programmed correction. Giving individual feedback on
the initial processes of interpretive, interpersonal, and especially, presentational
activities, is good for learning. Such feedback, however, is time intensive for
the instructor. Certain apps, software, and websites can simultaneously support
learning and reduce faculty labor. For example, the VoiceThread interface allows
faculty to observe and comment on students’ pronunciation, grammatical and
syntactical errors, and word choice before they submit their final version of a
presentational assignment or engage in a graded tandem exchange. Go React,
too, allows students to video record their preparatory work and receive com-
ments before submitting a final product. Google Docs has an add-on tool called
Kaizena that allows voice commentary on documents. Given the interactivity
inherent in Google documents, students and instructors can exchange questions
and comments on both written content and oral recordings. The instructor side
of Kaizena and GoReact have the added feature of pre-recorded or instruc-
tor-created responses to common student errors. The learning task, too, can be
scaffolded by preparational steps that guide learners toward better performance.
For example, in a writing task, students can be taught to effectively use L2
grammar and spelling correctors that are available in most word-processing pro-
grams (Google Docs, MS-Word, Keynote, etc.). In French and Spanish, there
are wonderful websites for error detection.The French one is called Bon Patron
and the Spanish one is called Spanish Checker. Based on a large corpus of stu-
dent composition errors in French and now in Spanish, the site analyzes student
work for common errors, but does not correct them. Rather, it annotates the
error so that the student can learn to self-correct. Below is a screenshot of the
French page where students submit their text (Figure 2.11). The paid version
allows for longer texts and greater depth of scaffolding and error correction.
Apps, sites, and software like BonPatron, LinguaFolio, GoReact, and
Extempore are ideal for capturing student performances. Furthermore, quiz
creators like Quizlet, H5P, SoftChalk, LMS test makers, as well as those in pub-
lisher materials, can contribute to online assessment.

Resources and Ancillaries

In the online world, the issue of resources has more than one meaning.
Sometimes it refers to all the technologies, media, institutional support, sup-
port units, and the like that are at the disposition of designers and developers
120  Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching

Figure 2.11  Screenshot of the BonPatron site by Nadaclair Language Technologies (n.d.).
Reprinted with permission.

(Bates, 2019). Here, however, it refers to additional learning materials and

instructional support, beyond those assigned as part of a course curriculum.
Often these lend to differentiated learning and open up even greater means of
representation of course content. However, a compendium of such resources
and ancillaries takes time to accumulate and vet. Some may eventually come
from being retired from a previous version of a course or module, maintaining
value as a resource, but no longer as primary material. Extra resources and
ancillaries might also include archived synchronous session recordings, links
to or embedded publisher-produced PowerPoints, models of successful past
student performance, and synchronous session class notes to name a few. The
number and types of additional resources should be organized so learners
can access what they need when they need it and not be confused by what is
assigned and what is ancillary (or extra).
The authors have found that student-curated ancillaries work well as resource
materials in intermediate to advanced online, blended, and flipped language
courses (Mathieu, Murphy-Judy, Middlebrooks, Boykova, & Godwin-Jones,
2019). With student-curated ancillaries, learners share discovered sources with
classmates, usually on a social media site that can aggregate all of their input
and/or through an oral presentation. Social bookmarking sites like Diigo, Digg,
 Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching  121

Pinterest, or StumbleUpon, as well as a class Google Doc or an LMS wiki, are

great places to aggregate, display, archive, and share the class “finds” (Godwin-
Jones, 2015).The task leads to developing autonomy in language learning while
creating a set of very useful course ancillaries. It also provides another means
of engagement, as recommended in the CAST (2018) UDL Guidelines. Many
students, upon discovering such sites from classmates, start to access them on
their own to further their learning. Important sites for supporting student work
like Bon Patron and Spanish Checker, if not already part of the course materials
and resources, may emerge from curation. Finally, through the many eyes and
searching techniques of the whole class, the instructor, too, benefits from the
students’ discoveries.

Other Tools
New tools and apps appear on the educational technology scene constantly.
It is important to stay abreast of emerging technologies and media. Although
the news of Google’s quantum supremacy for computers was announced in
October 2019, its impact on human lives and communication has yet to be felt
(Arute, Arya, & Babbush, 2019). Still, the fact that it performed mathematical
calculations in three minutes twenty seconds that would take supercomput-
ers over 10,000 years promises new heights in artificial intelligence, analytics,
holography, corpus linguistics, and the like. As new quantum computers come
online and processing accelerates, there may be no limit to development pos-
sibilities that combine the neuroscience of learning with second language
acquisition research and learner analytics, thus providing new applications,
connectivity, and heretofore unimaginable affordances.
In the current moment, online educators can browse the following sources:
Godwin-Jones’ regular column on emerging technologies in the online journal,
Language Learning & Technology (LLTI); the Tech Watch column in ACTFL’s
The Language Educator; Edutopia; FLTMAG, as well as other techie magazines.
Educational technology blogs are another good resource; or better yet, one
can set up an aggregator program for online publications using keywords like
“educational technology,” “world languages,” “second language acquisition,”
“teaching languages online,” etc. Once feeds are collected daily, weekly, or monthly,
educators can skim through the newest and latest in the field at their leisure. As
Chapter 4 details, national language resource centers (LRCs) that focus on new
technologies and media for language instruction also offer newsletters about emer-
ging te(a)chnologies. Reading about new products is a great way to think about
and develop new online language teaching and learning approaches and tools.
122  Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching

Gaming and augmented reality (AR) attract many learners. An online

course can actually be designed as a game with each module moving learners-
as-gamers toward communicative goals while being immersed in a safe
learning environment. One AR course in French called Paris occupé takes
place in a recreated Paris under Nazi occupation during World War II. It
covers all three modes of communication and integrates neatly into an
online French course at the Intermediate or Advanced Low levels. In his
LLTI column on AR where he presents Paris occupé, Godwin-Jones (2016)
also explains how commercial games like Pokémon Go can be turned into
powerful learning tools, in part because learners get to play the games they
already know and enjoy. Simulations and 3D gaming worlds, like Second
Life, Minecraft, and Day-Z are all filled with the potential for language
learning. Godwin-Jones (2016) addresses other marker-based and place-
based language games and game creation apps in his column. If online devel-
opers want to include gaming in a program, course, or module, they can
seek existing ones or create their own. Sites like Augmented Reality and
Interactive Storytelling (ARIS) offer free, open-source game editors that
reduce the time and costs of developing or modifying gaming programs.
Note, however, that building an engaging, effective online language learning
game from scratch is extremely time intensive and usually requires a very
large project team and deep funding resources. Finally, most digital creation
tools are audiovisual. The upsurge in maker-spaces, where learners create
physical objects though digital media, means that tactile—and perhaps even-
tually olfactory and even gustatory—learning opportunities and adventures
may one day populate the educational arena.
Since this section on tools is gazing toward a wide-open horizon of teaching
and learning opportunities, it should include robots and holograms. Actually,
robots are already being used in distance learning for mobility impaired learn-
ers or for telecommuting into learning spaces to work in teams. An iPad or
other tablet mounted onto a robot can be controlled by a student off-site such
that she can interact with fellow learners in real time and shared space, with
both audiovisual presence and movement. Holograms, on the other hand,
although part of cinematic, futuristic landscapes, are still a few years off for
widespread classroom or online integrations. Yet, having access to 3D real-
time and archived images can bring a whole world of cultural practices, prod-
ucts, and perspectives into a student’s learning space, whenever and wherever
it may occur. In the meantime, 3D tools, like Google Glass, and 3D spaces,
like Second Life and virtual worlds, allow for exciting immersive experiences
(Godwin-Jones, 2014; Reinhardt & Sykes, 2012).
 Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching  123

Given the focus in this chapter on developing not just robust online language
learning environments but also autonomous, self-directed learners, a review of
tools should include not only what they push out toward the learners but also, and
perhaps more importantly, how they engage learners through te(a)chnologies.

Conclusion
The concluding activity for development is evaluation. Still, as frequently noted,
ADDIE is an iterative process in which evaluation is a key element each step of the
way. Once a course has been developed, it is ready to be beta tested and, barring
major revisions, deployed. Chapter 3 fleshes out that fourth ADDIE step of imple-
mentation.To evaluate a program, course, or module that has been fully developed,
it is best to start with reviewing the goals because as each section or module is
considered, the overarching question is, “Does it work to reach the stated goals?”
Questions of usability, accessibility, and inclusion remain at the forefront of the
evaluation of the project developed. Development in this guide includes devel-
oping the overall structure, layout, and interface, as well as content development
of modules and lessons within modules. Most importantly, in the development
phase, instructional designers always pay careful attention to developing the learner
toward self-regulation and autonomy. Several institutions offer checklists for online
course development that can be found in the eResources for this chapter.

Key Takeaways
1. A good online language course develops a broad array of materials,
learning opportunities, and interactions within a clear, consistent, learner-
and learning-friendly interface.
2. While an online language course develops learners’ linguistic and cultural
capacities, it should also be developing learners’ self-regulation and sense of
autonomy. Online students need to regulate their own learning.
3. With the centrality of evaluation in the ADDIE model, a good online
course undergoes frequent revision based on data collection and critical
reflection throughout its design, development and deployment.
4. Good language teaching is good language teaching and transfers regard-
less of the mode of delivery. Many online instructors note that their
face-to-face classrooms improve significantly from their work on online
language courses, especially now, as digital content and online resources
and applications are used for all modes of course delivery, whether tra-
ditional, online, hybrid, or flipped.
124  Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching

Checklist
⬜⬜ The overall structure is coherent, accessible, usable, and inclusive.
⬜⬜ Course timeframes are realistic for the average learner.
⬜⬜ Developed materials will meet or exceed accessibility standards (WCAG
2.0, A, or AA), quality online learning standards (QM, in-house, or other),
world language education standards (ACTFL, CEFR, WIDA, other), and
any other standards and criteria required (e.g., professional certification).
⬜⬜ There is a defined protocol and calendar for the following: welcoming stu-
dents, orientation, the course of study, assessments, and course evaluation(s).
⬜⬜ Modules, interactions, tasks and assignments, and assessments adhere to
the UDL standard of multiple means of engagement, representation, and
expression.
⬜⬜ Modules, interactions, tasks, and assignments also target the development
of learner self-regulation and increasing autonomy as an online learner.
⬜⬜ Assessment of student learning derives directly from the stated learning
goals and objectives that have been sufficiently presented and scaffolded
through lessons and other learning opportunities.
⬜⬜ Technologies and media suit the learning objectives and processes, that is,
they are effective te(a)chnologies for the course.

Discussion Questions
1. Which facets of learner development are the most important in your cir-
cumstances? How do you plan to address them in course information
documents and in the individual modules?
2. What is more appropriate for your course, strong or tight structuring
of the course or module? Where might tasks and interactions be more
loosely defined, allowing for more learner autonomy and choice?
3. What kind of tasks and assessments might encourage learners to go beyond
the requirements toward self-directed learning?
4. Which te(a)chnologies are the most mind-opening for you as you begin
the development process?
5. Choose and review a list of standards or a checklist from the eResources site
that applies well to your situation. Then, consider the following questions:
a. Which of the listed items have you already considered? Which are
most important for your context?
b. What will you need to add for the specificity of your online language
course or module?
 Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching  125

Suggestions for Further Reading

Bates, A. W. (2019). Teaching in a digital age (Chaps. 4, 7, 9, 11).Vancouver, CA:
Bates. Retrieved from https://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/
Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST). (2018). Universal design for
learning guidelines (Version 2.2). Retrieved from http://udlguidelines.cast.org
Wandler, J. B., & Imbriale,W. (2017). Promoting undergraduate student self-regulation
in online learning environments. doi:10.24059/olj.v21i2.881

References
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). (2017).
Use of the target language in language learning. Retrieved from https://www
.actfl.org/resources/guiding-principles-language-learning/use-target-
language-language-learning
Anderson, T. (2016, March 3). The enigma of interaction [Blog post]. Retrieved
from https://virtualcanuck.ca/2016/03/03/the-enigma-of-interaction/
Angelo, T.A., & Cross, K.P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook
for college teachers. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Arute, F.,Arya, K., Babbush, R., Bacon, D., Bardin, J. C., Barends, R., … Martinis,
J. M. (2019). Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting
processor. Nature, 574, 505–510. doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1666-5
Barnard, L., Lan, W., To, Y., Paton, V., & Lai, S. (2009). Measuring self-regulation
in online and blended learning environments. The Internet and Higher
Education, 12(1), 1–6. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.10.005
Bates, A. W. (2019). Teaching in a digital age. Vancouver, CA: Bates. Retrieved
from https://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/
British Dyslexia Association. (2012). Dyslexia style guide. Retrieved from
https://www.bdadyslexia.org.uk/advice/employers/creating-a-dyslexia-
friendly-workplace/dyslexia-friendly-style-guide
Burns, M. (2019, April 14). To read or not to read: Text in an online world.
eLearning Industry [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://elearningindustry.
com/text-in-an-online-world-read
Bury, M. (2014). Community of inquiry model. Retrieved from http://https://
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_of_inquiry
Center for Applied Second Language Studies (CASLS). (2015). LinguaFolio
online: Unit planner guide. Retrieved from https://lfonetwork.uoregon.edu/
wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/03/Unit_Planner_Guide_Final_
Updates.pdf
126  Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching

Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST). (2018). Universal design for
learning guidelines (Version 2.2). Retrieved from http://udlguidelines.cast.org
Center for Language & Technology at the University of Hawai`i at Maˉnoa (n.d.).
BOLDD Workshop. CALICO Conference 2017. Flagstaff, Arizona.
Center for Language & Technology at the University of Hawai`i at Maˉnoa. (n.d.).
Interaction blueprint. Retrieved from https://clt.manoa.hawaii.edu/projects/
online-learning-design-studio/interaction/
Conole, G. (2013). Designing for learning in an open world. New York, NY: Springer
Conti, G., & Smith, S. (2019). Breaking the sound barrier:Teaching language learners
how to listen. Independently published.
Council of Europe, Language Policy Division. (2020). European language portfolio.
Retrieved from http://languageportfolio.weebly.com/european-language-
portfolioelp.html
Curts, E. (2019, May 29). 4 free and easy audio recording tools for Google Slides
in tech and learning [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.techlearning
.com/news/4-free-and-easy-audio-recording-tools-for-google-slides
Dabbagh, N. (2007).The online learner: Characteristics and pedagogical impli-
cations. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 7(3). Retrieved
from https://citejournal.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/
v7i3general1.pdf
Garrison, D. R. (2006a). Online collaboration principles. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 10(1), 25–34. doi:10.24059/olj.v10i1.1768
Garrison, D. R. (2006b). Online community of inquiry review: Social, cogni-
tive, and teaching presence issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,
11(1), 61–72. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ842688
Glisan, E.W., & Donato, R. (2017). Enacting the work of language instruction: High
leverage teaching practices. Alexandria,VA: American Council on the Teaching
of Foreign Languages.
Godwin-Jones, R. (2014). Games in language learning: Opportunities and
challenges. Language Learning and Technology, 18(2), 9–19. Retrieved from
http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2014/emerging.pdf
Godwin-Jones, R. (2015). Contributing, creating, curating: Digital literacies for
language learners. Language Learning and Technology, 19(3), 8–20. Retrieved
from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2015/emerging.pdf
Godwin-Jones, R. (2016). Augmented reality and language learning: From
annotated vocabulary to place-based mobile games. Language Learning
and Technology, 20(3), 9–19. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/
october2016/emerging.pdf
 Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching  127

IMS Global Learning Consortium. (n.d.). The open video capture standard.
Retrieved from https://www.imsglobal.org/OpenVideoCallforParticipation
.html
Jensen, E. (2008). Brain-based learning: The new paradigm of teaching (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Jones, L. (2019, November 1). Three innovative approaches to integrating
emoji into your language lessons. FLTMAG. Retrieved from https://
fltmag.com/integrating-emoji-into-your-language-lessons/
Jutting, C. (2016, August 3). Universities are tracking their students. Is it
clever or creepy? The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguar
dian.com/higher-education-network/2016/aug/03/learning-analytics-
universities-data-track-students
Kharback, M. (2020). Bloom’s digital taxonomy for the web. Retrieved from
https://www.educatorstechnology.com/2016/12/blooms-digital-taxonomy-
for-web.html
Kumar, P., & Skyrocki, M. (2016, May 6). Ensuring student success in online
courses. Faculty Focus. Retrieved from https://www.facultyfocus.com/
articles/online-education/ensuring-student-success-online-courses/
Lachmann-Anke, P., & Lachmann-Anke, M. (n.d.). Teacher schools univer-
sity [Cartoon]. Retrieved from https://pixabay.com/illustrations/teacher-
school-university-board-1015630/
Linguistic & Cultural Diversity Reinvented Group. (2020). Language integration
through e-portfolio (LITE). Retrieved from https://lite.lincdireproject
.org/
Lord, G., & Lomicka, L. (Eds.). (2009). The next generation: Social media net-
working and online collaboration in foreign language learning. San Marcos, TX:
CALICO.
Masterson, K. (2019). 5 Trends in mobile technology. Chronicle of Higher Education.
Retrieved from https://connect.chronicle.com/rs/931-EKA-218/images/
MobileTrends_Snapshot_mkto.pdf
Mathieu, L., Murphy-Judy, K., Godwin-Jones, R., Middlebrooks, L., &
Boykava, N. (2019). Learning in the open: Integrating language and cul-
ture through student curation, virtual, exchange, and OER. In A. Beaven, A.
Comas-Quinn, & B. Sawhill (Eds.), New case studies of openness in and beyond
the language classroom (pp. 1–18). Research-publishing.net. doi: 10.14705/
rpnet.2019.37.967
McGaugh, J. L. (2000). Memory:A century of consolidation. Science, 287(5451),
248–251. doi.org/10.1126/science.287.5451.248
128  Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching

Miller, A. M., Morgan,W. J., & Koronkiewicz, B. (2018). Like or tweet: Analysis
of the use of Facebook and Twitter in the language classroom. TechTrends,
63, 550–558. doi:10.1007/s11528-018-0341-2
Nadaclair Language Technologies. (n.d.). Bon patron. Retrieved from https://
bonpatron.com
National Council of State Supervisors for Languages, & American Council on
the Teaching of Foreign Languages (NCSSFL-ACTFL). (2017). NCSSFL-
ACTFL can-do statements. Retrieved from https://www.actfl.org/resources/
ncssfl-actfl-can-do-statements
National Standards Collaborative Board. (2015). World-readiness standards for
learning languages (4th ed.). Alexandria,VA: Author.
Newtown, P., & Miah, M. (2017). Evidence-based higher education: Is the
learning styles “myth” important? Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 444. doi:10.3389/
fpsyg.2017.00444
O’Dowd, R. (Ed.). (2007). Online intercultural exchange: An introduction for for-
eign language teachers. Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters. Retrieved from
https://www.degruyter.com/view/product/523863
O’Dowd, R. (2011). Intercultural communication competence through tele-
collaboration. In J. Jackson (Ed.), The handbook of language and intercultural
communication (pp. 340–356) Abingdon, England: Routledge.
O’Dowd, R., & Klippel, F. (2006). Telecollaboration and the development of intercul-
tural communicative competence. Berlin, Germany: Langenscheidt.
O’Neill, E. (2019). Training students to use online translators and dictionaries:
The impact on second language writing scores. International Journal of Research
Studies in Language Learning, 8(2), 47–65. doi:10.5861/ijrsll.2019.4002
Pacansky-Brock, M. (2015). How to humanize your online class. T&L Innovations.
Retrieved from https://brocansky.com/humanizing-infographic
Pappas, C. (2015, July 21). Typography in eLearning: 5 key tips for eLearning
professionals. eLearning Industry [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://
elearningindustry.com/typography-in-elearning-5-key-tips-for-elearning-
professionals
Parle, M., Singh, N., & Vasudevan, M. (2006). Regular rehearsal helps in con-
solidation of long-term memory. Journal of Sports Science & Medicine, 5(1), 80.
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles:
Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105–119.
doi:10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x
Potter, M. C., Wyble, B., Hagmann, C. E., & McCourt, E. S. (2014). Detecting
meaning in RSVP at 13 ms per picture. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics,
76(2), 270–279. doi:10.3758/s13414-013-0605-z
 Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching  129

Racsmány, M., Conway, M.A., & Demeter, G. (2010). Consolidation of episodic

memories during sleep: Long-term effects of retrieval practice. Psychological
Science, 21(1), 80–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797609354074
Reinhardt, J., & Sykes, J. M. (2012). Conceptualizing digital game-mediated
L2 learning and pedagogy: Game-enhanced and game-based research and
practice. In H. Reinders (Ed.), Digital games in language learning and teaching
(pp. 32–49). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rello, L., & Baeza-Yates, R. (2013). Good fonts for dyslexia. In Proceedings of the
15th ACM SIGACCESS international conference on computers and accessibility
(pp. 1–8). Bellevue,Washington:ACM Press. doi:10.1145/2513383.2513447
Rello, L., & Baeza-Yates, R. (2015). How to present more readable text for
people with dyslexia. Universal Access in the Information Society, 16, 29–49.
doi:10.1007/s10209-015-0438-8
Rello, L., Bautista, S., Baeza-Yates, R., Gervás, P., Hervás, R., & Saggion, H.
(2013a). One half or 50%? An eye-tracking study of number representation
readability. In P. Kotzé, G. Marsden, G. Lindgaard, J. Wesson, & M. Winckler
(Eds.), Proceedings of the 2013 IFIP conference on human–computer interac-
tion (Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 8120). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-3-642-40498-6_17
Rello, L., & Bigham, J. P. (2017). Good background colors for readers: A
study of people with and without dyslexia. In Proceedings of the 19th
international ACM SIGACCESS conference on computers and accessibility
(pp. 72–80). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
doi:10.1145/3132525.3132546
Rello, L., Kanvinde, G., & Baeza-Yates, R. (2012). Layout guidelines for web
text and a web service to improve accessibility for dyslexics. In Proceedings of
the international cross-disciplinary conference on web accessibility (pp. 1–9). Lyon,
France: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/2207016.2207048
Rello, L., Pielot, M., Marcos, M. C., & Carlini, R. (2013b). Size matters (spacing
not): 18 points for a dyslexic-friendly Wikipedia. In Proceedings of the 10th
international cross-disciplinary conference on web accessibility (pp. 1–4). New York,
NY: Association for Computing Machinery. doi:10.1145/2461121.2461125
Rientes, B., Lewis, T., Mcfarlane, R., Nguyen, Q., & Toetenel, L. (2018).
Analytics in online and offline language learning environments: The role
of learning design to understand student online engagement. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 31(3), 273–293.
Roediger, H. L., & Butler, A. C. (2011). The critical role of retrieval prac-
tice in long-term retention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, 20–27. doi.
org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.09.003
130  Nuts and Bolts of Online Teaching

Rogowsky, B., Calhoun, B., & Tallal, P. (2015). Matching learning style to
instructional method: Effects on comprehension. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 107(1), 64–78. doi:10.1037/a0037478
Rothstein, D., & Santana, L. (2011). Make just one change: Teach students to ask
their own questions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Group.
Saadatmand, M., Uhlin, L., Hedberg, M., Åbjörnsson, L., & Kvarnström, M.
(2017). Examining learners’ interaction in an open online course through
the community of inquiry framework. European Journal of Open, Distance and
e-Learning, 20(1), 61–79. doi:10.1515/eurodl-2017-0004
Shea, P., Pickett, A., & Pelz, W. (2019). A follow-up investigation of “teaching
presence” in the SUNY learning network. Online Learning, 7(2). doi:10.24059/
olj.v7i2.1856
Statistica Research Department. (2019, July 23). Mobile phone internet user pene-
tration worldwide. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/284202/
mobile-phone-internet-user-penetration-worldwide/
Telles, J. A. (2015). Learning foreign languages in teletandem: Resources and
strategies. DELTA: Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada,
31(3), 603–632. doi:10.1590/0102-4450226475643730772
Virginia Department of Education, Office of Special Education Instructional
Service and the Office of Humanities and Early Childhood Education. (2017).
Supporting world language learning for students with disabilities. Retrieved from
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/foreign_language/resources/
world-language-swd.pdf
Wilmes, B., Harrington, L., Kohler-Evans, P., & Sumpter, D. (2008). Coming
to our senses: Incorporating brain research findings into classroom instruc-
tion. Education, 128(4), 659–667.
Ziegler, N., & Moeller, A. (2012). Increasing self-regulated learning through
the LinguaFolio. Foreign Language Annals, 45(3), 330–348. doi:10.1111/
j.1944-9720.2012.01205.x
Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achieve-
ment: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3-17. doi:10.1207/
s15326985ep2501_2
Zimmerman, T. D. (2012). Exploring learner to content interaction as a suc-
cess factor in online courses. International Review of Research in Open and
Distributed Learning, 13(4), 152–165. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v13i4.1302
Chapter 3

What Is Special
about Teaching
Language Online?
Introduction
Chapters 1 and 2 covered the basics of designing and developing online
or blended language courses. This chapter explains how to deliver instruc-
tion by applying sound pedagogical practices to the online teaching and
learning environment. The practices described in this chapter may be
applied equally to the delivery of online, blended, and/or flipped language
courses. Teaching language is different than teaching other disciplines
online because students must engage in speaking, reading, writing, and lis-
tening practice while learning rich cultural content that enables them to
develop intercultural communicative competence (ICC). ICC refers to the
ability to understand cultures, including one’s own culture, and to be able
to use this understanding to communicate appropriately with people from
other cultural backgrounds; speakers who possess ICC not only attempt to
gain an inside view of another’s culture, they also attempt to understand
their own culture from an alternate cultural perspective (Byram, 1997).
This may be achieved by investigating the world beyond the learners’
immediate environment, identifying and evaluating perspectives, obtaining

131
132  Teaching Language Online Is Special

and applying both disciplinary and interdisciplinary knowledge, expressing

ideas, and taking action (ACTFL, 2014).
With many other disciplines, only reading and writing are necessary to learn
the course content online. However, with language learning, listening and
speaking are also critical components of the course that are necessary for stu-
dents to build their proficiency in the target language; moreover, all four skills
are also needed for students to develop their knowledge and understandings
of cultural practices and products and the perspectives that underpin them.
Therefore, special consideration must be given to the technology tools and
applications that are used to facilitate the acquisition of language and culture
online. Many effective tools and resources were presented in Chapter 2 and sev-
eral others are highlighted in this chapter. However, language educators must
keep in mind that technology tools and applications will change over time;
therefore, online pedagogy is not tied to a particular piece of technology. It
is more important to develop an understanding of the teaching practices that
facilitate students’ language acquisition as well as how to enact them in the
online environment. In addition, language courses also require instructors to
deliver instruction on culture through literary, historical, and geographical con-
tent while simultaneously teaching language within a meaningful or real-world
context. Online language instructors must perform all of these functions in the
online environment; therefore, highly specialized knowledge, skills, and exper-
tise are required to deliver quality online language courses that are effective,
efficient, and engaging for both students and instructors alike. The authors aim
to help language educators develop the key knowledge and understandings that
underpin successful online language instruction in this chapter.

Teaching in Online and Blended Environments

This chapter focuses on online language pedagogy, or how to teach language
in the online or blended environment. In order to be proficient at online
language teaching, instructors must acquire a broad base of knowledge across
three domains: knowing how to teach language (language pedagogy), know-
ing how to teach online (online pedagogy), and knowing how to use edu-
cational technologies to deliver online teaching (pedagogy for educational
technology). The intersection of these three domains are the competencies
that are required of online language teachers; namely, knowledge of the ped-
agogy and technology for teaching language online or online language peda-
gogy. Figure 3.1 provides a visual representation of the competencies that are
needed for effective online language instruction.
 Teaching Language Online Is Special  133

Figure 3.1  Competencies for effective online language teaching, graphic created by Marlene
Johnshoy, Online Education Program Director, Center for Advanced Research on
Language Acquisition (CARLA), University of Minnesota.
Used with permission.

All language educators take coursework to become experts in their discipline.

In addition to their content knowledge, they also receive training on language ped-
agogy—or how to teach content in traditional, brick-and-mortar classrooms—in
their teacher preparation programs. However, very few teacher education pro-
grams address the specific skills that are needed to teach language in online or
blended learning environments. With the proliferation of virtual K-12 schools
as well as the tremendous growth of online course delivery at the community
college and university levels in recent years, online and hybrid courses are in great
demand (Allen, J. Seaman, Poulin, & Straut, 2016). Moreover, enrollment rates for
online courses continue to outpace enrollments in traditional, brick-and-mortar
classes; since 2012, online enrollments have increased steadily, while enrollments in
traditional courses have declined (J. E. Seaman, Allen, & J. Seaman, 2018).
134  Teaching Language Online Is Special

As the demand for online courses grows, the need for qualified online
language educators will also continue to expand. Often, instructors with no
knowledge of online pedagogies are asked to teach online to fill the high
demand for online courses. The authors do not recommend teaching in the
online environment without sufficient support and training, as it will lead to
much frustration for the instructor and for the students. Language educators
who are called upon to enter into the online language teaching environment
are in need of significant professional development on pedagogy and tech-
nology for teaching language online. Similarly, those who are already experi-
enced online language instructors need to keep up with the latest technologies
and pedagogies for online language teaching. Chapter 4 provides a wealth of
resources for obtaining professional development in online language pedagogy.
Those with little or no experience teaching online are strongly encouraged to
utilize the resources that are available in Chapter 4.
This chapter provides the foundation for teaching language commu-
nicatively in online, blended, or flipped learning environments. It covers
communicative competence (Canale, 1983; Canale & Swain, 1980; Hymes,
1972), pragmatics-focused instruction, the notional/functional syllabus,
lesson design, professional standards and proficiency guidelines, and Glisan
and Donato’s (2017) core practices, with specific strategies for implement-
ing them in the online environment. All of the key components of effective
language teaching must be enacted in the online environment and this
chapter will help instructors to do so.

Teaching Language in Flipped Learning

Environments
In addition to those who teach in online and blended environments, language
teachers who incorporate the flipped learning approach also need to develop
competencies for designing, developing, and delivering language instruction
outside of class time. In a traditional brick-and-mortar classroom, the teacher
presents new material in a lecture format and students engage in practice
activities outside of class. However, in a flipped classroom, students are intro-
duced to the new material prior to class meetings using online delivery meth-
ods and class time is used to deepen students’ understanding through group
or pair work, discussion, and/or oral or written practice activities (Higher
Education Academy, 2015). Therefore, the flipped learning approach reverses
the traditional classroom because students learn the new material prior to
class and class time is used for activities that would have been assigned for
 Teaching Language Online Is Special  135

homework in a traditional classroom. However, with the flipped model, the

practice activities are typically more communicative and interactive than tra-
ditional homework activities because learners can easily interact with their
peers to complete assignments during class time. With traditional homework,
students generally work alone in the written modality. Therefore, the flipped
model has the potential to provide students with more speaking and listening
practice compared to the traditional delivery model.
According to King (1993), the teacher becomes the guide on the side, rather
than the sage on the stage, with the flipped learning approach. The flipped
classroom is possible due to the use of learning management platforms,
video-based lectures, and other online tools that allow students to approach
new content on their own outside of class and at their own pace. With respect
to second language (L2) classrooms, flipped learning allows for more interac-
tive, engaging, and meaningful instruction because classroom time is used to
develop communicative goals while learners focus on grammar, vocabulary,
syntax, and other linguistic features outside of class on their own (Cowie &
Sakui, 2015; Egbert, Herman, & Chang, 2014). The main purpose of adopt-
ing the flipped learning approach is to enable class time to be used for the
development of learners’ communicative competence; therefore, flipped
language instructors need a deep understanding of this concept. They also
need to acquire knowledge of online methods, tools, and resources to provide
language instruction for students outside of class time and to differentiate their
instruction to meet their students’ diverse learning needs.

The Components of Communicative

Competence
The main goal of online language teaching should be for students to acquire
communicative competence in the target language. Hymes (1972) defined
communicative competence as learners’ grammatical knowledge as well
as their knowledge of the social context in which language is used, which
includes knowing how to use language appropriately in social situations.
Canale and Swain (1980) expanded upon Hymes’ definition to include three
components of communicative competence: grammatical competence, socio-
linguistic competence, and strategic competence. Canale (1983) later added
an additional component: discourse competence. Grammatical competence
involves knowledge of grammatical forms (such as verb tenses and moods),
sentence structure, vocabulary items, and pronunciation among other lin-
guistic features. Given that the treatment of grammar is so thorough in many
136  Teaching Language Online Is Special

secondary and postsecondary language textbooks, language educators may

be tempted to focus heavily on the instruction of grammatical forms and
structures. Many language textbooks devote a large portion of their content
to presenting grammar rules and exceptions to grammar rules. However, an
emphasis on the technical aspects of language does not lead to learners’ devel-
opment of communicative competence. Language courses, textbooks, and
curricula are in need of content and activities that promote sociolinguistic and
strategic competence.
Even if students could learn L2 grammar perfectly, this knowledge would
be insufficient to develop communicative competence. Without knowledge
of the social aspects of language, an individual’s speech will always seem for-
eign to native speakers. Sociolinguistic competence refers to knowledge of
pragmatics, or how to use the language in ways that are socially and cultur-
ally appropriate, and knowledge of the discourse structures of language, such
as knowing how to form cohesive and coherent sentences or utterances in
the target language. The majority of second and foreign language textbooks
that are available today either do not teach pragmatics or their treatment of
pragmatics is inadequate (Ishihara, 2010; Pinto, 2002). Therefore, it is up to
language instructors to infuse their courses with instruction on the social
aspects of language. While most textbooks do not include pragmatics-focused
activities, there are a number of online resources available for teaching L2
pragmatics. Several links on how to teach L2 pragmatics as well as some web-
based resources for teaching Japanese and Spanish pragmatics are available in
the eResources for this book.
One way to teach pragmatics is to provide instruction on speech acts, which
are specific language functions that are generally universal across languages,
such as complimenting, complaining, greeting, inviting, refusing, requesting,
and thanking to name a few. However, the way that speech acts are realized
will vary greatly by language and culture. For example, requests in English
typically are comprised of an ability statement such as can I or could I fol-
lowed by the politeness marker please. Conversely, most requests in Spanish
(between interlocutors who know each other) are comprised of a direct com-
mand such as dame [give me] or ponme [get me] without any politeness marker.
Therefore, the Spanish language is more direct than English with respect to
requests. Unless they are instructed otherwise, language students will transfer
the pragmatic strategies from their first language (L1) to the L2. For example,
Spanish language learners whose L1 is English tend to transfer English request
strategies (inappropriately) into Spanish. Therefore, when making requests,
they often say puedo tener [literally: can I have], which is both incorrect and
 Teaching Language Online Is Special  137

inappropriate in Spanish. This English request strategy seems very strange to

native Spanish speakers and it is a good example of the importance of how
sociolinguistic competence contributes to learners’ development of commu-
nicative competence.
The third component of communicative competence, according to Canale
and Swain (1980), is strategic competence. This includes skills such as circum-
locution, back-channeling cues, and word coinage. It is important for students
to learn these skills so that they can maintain conversations with native speakers.
Circumlocution is the ability to use other words to talk around or describe the
word that is missing from the student’s vocabulary knowledge. When students
are learning a new language, it is very common for them to have large holes or
gaps in their vocabulary knowledge. By using circumlocution, language learn-
ers are able to get their point across using the words and phrases that they do
know. Online language teachers can help foster this skill by posting pictures of
unfamiliar objects in discussion boards and asking students to describe them.
This may be done using either written discussion boards or voice boards.
Back-channeling cues can also be taught to language learners and they refer
to communication that serves a purely social function and that keeps the con-
versation going between the speakers. This can include small talk, social pleas-
antries, and nonverbal communication such as facial expressions and gestures
(e.g., head nodding). Back-channeling cues also include vocal sounds such
as “hmm” and “uh-huh,” which vary by language. These types of vocalized
sounds indicate that one interlocutor is actively listening to the other.
Word coinage is another feature of strategic competence; it is the ability to
invent words when specific vocabulary items that learners need to communi-
cate their message are unknown. For example, a language learner may say “air
ball” instead of balloon. It is important for online language instructors to let
their students know that they are free to use whatever words are necessary to
get their point across. Students must feel comfortable making mistakes, coin-
ing words, and talking around words when they have gaps in their vocabulary
knowledge. When the online course has a focus on communication rather
than on grammatical accuracy, students can begin to relax and enjoy using the
target language to communicate their messages.

Pragmatics-Focused Instruction
One way to teach pragmatics to online students is to have them view authentic
videos of native speakers engaging in conversations on everyday topics such as
shopping for food, using public transportation, and eating out. LangMedia is
138  Teaching Language Online Is Special

a repository of numerous authentic videos that show aspects of everyday life

in over 25 different countries in both commonly and less commonly taught
languages.Videos are organized by country and region, and transcripts for the
videos are available in both the target language and in English.
To use LangMedia videos for promoting the development of strategic
competence, students can listen for and list all of the back-channeling cues
that they hear and/or see in the video. After listening for and recognizing
back-channeling cues, students may then be asked to incorporate some of
them into their own dialogue and/or role-play activities. Figure 3.2 presents a
screenshot from LangMedia. In this figure, four authentic videos are available
that show native speakers purchasing food items from open air markets as well
as from supermarkets. Cultural information is provided about the shopping
habits of native speakers who live in Mexico and examples are given for how
people shop in the country and in larger cities.
An excerpt of a transcript from the video “Buying food at a small super-
market” is presented in Figure 3.3. There is one back-channeling cue, Hmm, as
well as colloquial language, such as ‘Ta bien [It’s OK], rather than the grammati-
cally correct Está bien [It’s OK]. Moreover, the term bolillo [bread roll] is used by
one of the speakers.This term is frequently used in Mexico, but it is less common
in other countries where Spanish is spoken.The more common term is panecillo

Figure 3.2  LangMedia, food shopping in Mexico.

Used with permission.
 Teaching Language Online Is Special  139

Figure 3.3  Excerpt from transcript of “Buying food at a small supermarket” from LangMedia
(shopping for food in Mexico) with the English translation.
Used with permission.

[bread roll]. Colloquial forms, back-channeling cues, and dialectical differ-

ences such as these do not typically make their way into language textbooks.
However, in order to become proficient in the target language, it is impor-
tant for students to be able to understand the language as it is spoken in its
natural social and cultural context. Therefore, Internet-based resources such
as LangMedia may be superior to language textbooks for fostering learners’
sociolinguistic and strategic competence in the L2. Moreover, language educators–
if they are not native speakers of the language(s) that they teach–are advanced
language learners themselves.Therefore, English translations of the video tran-
scripts may help them feel more comfortable using this resource with their
students, especially if they are unaware of the colloquial expressions and dia-
lectical differences that the speakers use in the videos.
If the main goal of an online language course is to help students develop
communicative competence in the target language, then the main focus
140  Teaching Language Online Is Special

of instruction should not be on teaching grammar. Rather, learners should be

engaged in the communicative and social aspects of language, with an emphasis
on how the language is spoken in its natural sociocultural context. It is also
important to include instruction on how to maintain conversations with native
speakers through the use of circumlocution, word coinage, and back-channeling
cues. This focus will bring the language to life for online learners and it should
motivate them to learn the target language and its cultures.

The Communicative Language Teaching

Approach (CLT)
Many language teacher education programs promote the communicative
language teaching (CLT) approach. This is a flexible approach to teaching that
prioritizes instruction on the notions and functions of language over target
language forms and structures.While linguistic forms and structures are taught
within the CLT paradigm, their purpose is to support meaningful communi-
cation in the L2 for the development of learners’ communicative competence.
The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL), the
Council of Europe, and other professional language teaching organizations
advocate the use of CLT.
The CLT approach emphasizes notions, which are real-world situations in
which people communicate (e.g., shopping, eating out, going to the doctor),
and functions, which refer to the language that is needed to communicate in
a given real-world situation. For example, if the notion is shopping, then some
possible functions are asking how much something costs, asking for another
size, and negotiating a price. In other words, functions are the specific aims
of communication, while notions are the situations or settings in which the
communication takes place.
According to Richards (2006), CLT has the following guiding principles:

●● Make real communication the focus of language learning.

●● Provide opportunities for learners to experiment and try out what they
know.
●● Be tolerant of learners’ errors as they indicate that the learner is building
up his or her communicative competence.
●● Provide opportunities for learners to develop both accuracy and fluency.
●● Link the different skills such as speaking, reading, and listening together,
since they usually occur so in the real world.
●● Let students induce or discover grammar rules (p. 13).
 Teaching Language Online Is Special  141

It is important to keep in mind that CLT is a flexible teaching approach and

not a prescriptive teaching method because there are no clear methodological
procedures. In fact, many different methods and techniques, such as task-based
teaching and content-based teaching, fit well under the CLT paradigm.

Core Practices for Language Instruction

Core practices may be defined as the essential knowledge, skills, and under-
standings that teachers must have to carry out their core instructional respon-
sibilities in their specific disciplines (Ball & Forzani, 2009). Therefore, core
practices are discipline specific. In other words, what works for teaching one
subject will not necessarily carry over into another subject. According to
Glisan and Donato (2017), core practices are complex instructional actions,
behaviors, and techniques that are powerful in advancing student learning;
these practices are not readily transparent and they are not learnable through
observations alone. Glisan and Donato (2017) asserted that core practices must
be deconstructed and taught explicitly in teacher education programs and
they must be rehearsed and coached within specific contexts. Finally, teacher
educators must be able to justify the instruction of these practices for the
development of professional expertise (Glisan & Donato, 2017).
Six core practices for language instruction were identified by Glisan and
Donato (2017) as follows: “(1) facilitating target language comprehensibility,
(2) building a classroom discourse community, (3) guiding learners to interpret
and discuss authentic texts, (4) focusing on form in a dialogic context through
PACE [grammar is taught as a concept], (5) focusing on cultural products,
practices, and perspectives in a dialogic context, and (6) providing oral cor-
rective feedback to improve learner performance” (p. 11). These core practices
are advocated by ACTFL.
Glisan and Donato (2017) asserted that the aforementioned practices are
not an exhaustive list, as there are likely other core practices that could be
identified and explicitly taught in teacher education programs. However, they
suggested that these are the minimum that are necessary to begin instructing
language effectively (Glisan & Donato, 2017). Furthermore, the core practices
listed above would be considered large-grain core practices. In order to enact
them, language teachers would need to engage in many other small-grain
core practices. For example, under the Core Practice facilitating target language
comprehensibility, some small-grain practices would include speaking slowly
and clearly in the target language, using input that is just beyond the learn-
ers’ current level, and using gestures, facial expression, and other visual cues
142  Teaching Language Online Is Special

to facilitate students’ comprehension to name a few. Consequently, there are

numerous small-grain core practices that could be identified, deconstructed,
and explicitly taught to L2 teacher candidates under each of the six large-grain
core practices listed above.
Regarding Glisan and Donato’s recommendation to use the PACE model
to teach grammar, this is a novel technique that was proposed by Donato
and Adair-Hauck (Adair-Hauck, 1993; Donato & Adair-Hauck, 1992, 1994,
2016), where grammar is taught dialogically. This means that teachers and
students co-construct grammar rules.With traditional teacher-fronted instruc-
tion, grammar is taught deductively with the teacher explaining the grammar
rules followed by the presentation of target language examples. With the
inductive approach to grammar instruction, the teacher shows the students
target language examples, and then the students try to figure out the rules
by themselves. With the dialogic approach, scaffolding is provided by the
language instructor in the form of guiding questions that prompt students
to reflect upon, predict, and make generalizations about how the language
works. In other words, students write grammar rules using their own words
with the guidance of the teacher, who ensures that the students’ explanations
are appropriate.
PACE stands for Presentation, Attention, Co-Construction, and Extension.
For the presentation aspect of this model, teachers do not present grammat-
ical rules and structures. Rather, they focus on an authentic piece of text or
on an oral dialogue that contains the targeted grammatical form or structure.
The focus remains on meaning, but the text or dialogue is flooded with the
targeted grammatical form. Students’ attention is then drawn to the targeted
forms or structures through input enhancement (highlighting, bolding, etc.) or
through the use of visual cues. This is the attention piece of the model. The
co-construction phase is when the teacher scaffolds the students in the devel-
opment of their own grammar rules. Richards (2006) asserted that having
students “discover” grammar rules is a guiding principle for the CLT approach.
Finally, in the extension phase, the students complete a task that is related to
the theme of the lesson. The task requires them to use the targeted form or
structure, but the focus remains on meaning rather than on form. The PACE
model allows grammar to be taught as a concept rather than as discrete points
of knowledge. This technique is also known as story-based language teaching
(Donato & Adair-Hauck, 2016) and it is a good fit for teaching and learning
environments that adhere to the CLT approach.
While teacher candidates and novice teachers may struggle to effectively
enact the core practices listed above, most experienced and effective language
 Teaching Language Online Is Special  143

teachers use them daily. However, additional knowledge, skills, and exper-
tise are necessary to enact them effectively in online, blended, and/or flipped
learning environments. Therefore, language educators who wish to teach in
these environments may need additional professional development opportu-
nities, training materials, and resources.

CLT in Online, Blended, and Flipped

Learning Environments
Creating online, blended, or flipped courses that follow the principles of CLT
(Richards, 2006) as well as the core practices for world language instruction
(Glisan & Donato, 2017) is a complex task that requires a myriad of knowl-
edge, skills, and competencies. While it may seem overwhelming to transition
initially from traditional to online, blended, or flipped learning environments,
following the ten guidelines listed in Table 3.1 will help language educators
teach communicatively online. In this chapter, the authors provide guidance
and examples regarding how to implement these guidelines online. This list is
not meant to be exhaustive, but incorporating them will help language edu-
cators design, develop, and deliver online courses that facilitate the language
acquisition process. Of note, the concept of backward design is instrumental to
the online language course design process; this topic is covered extensively in
Chapter 1 and readers are encouraged to review this concept as they consider
the guidelines below.

Table 3.1  Ten guidelines for teaching communicatively in online, blended, and flipped
language learning environments

1. Emphasize the notions and functions of language.

2. Focus on meaning over form.
3. Deliver 90% or more of the instruction in the target language.
4. Base lessons on professional standards and what students can actually do at the
targeted proficiency level.
5. Avoid mechanical and pattern drill activities.
6. Facilitate student-teacher and student-student interaction to foster the negotiation of
meaning.
7. Incorporate open-ended activities, such as role-plays and information gap tasks,
where students engage in creative language use.
8. Integrate authentic materials, which are materials and resources that were created by
and/or for native speakers of the target language.
9. Create a meaningful cultural context for language instruction.
10. Grade students holistically and provide appropriate corrective feedback.
144  Teaching Language Online Is Special

While backward design is of paramount importance in the instructional design

process for online courses across every discipline, the guidelines listed on the
previous page are specific for instructing language courses in online, blended,
and flipped learning environments.

The Notional/Functional Syllabus

Creating and following a notional/function syllabus rather than a structural
syllabus (i.e., one that focuses on the instruction of grammatical forms, struc-
tures, and lexical items) will enable online language educators to incorpo-
rate Guidelines 1 and 2 from Table 3.1. When planning the course syllabus,
Guideline 1 (emphasize the notions and functions of language) and Guideline 2
(focus on meaning over form) need to be taken into account. The course syllabus
should revolve around language notions and functions and not around discon-
nected grammatical forms, structures, and vocabulary. With the CLT approach,
language educators build course syllabi around various real-world situations, and
then they teach the necessary language functions that are needed to communi-
cate in those specific situations. Consequently, when teaching communicatively,
language educators should be careful not to rely too heavily on course textbooks
that take a structural approach. Most secondary and postsecondary textbooks
that are available in the United States and elsewhere include both notions/
functions and the structures of language. Therefore, language educators may
opt to place greater emphasis on language notions and functions rather than
on grammatical forms and structures in their courses. Even when instructors
are required to use textbooks that focus heavily on grammar, it is still pos-
sible to teach communicatively because there are a wide range of materials and
resources available online that could be used to build a notional/functional syl-
labus. For example, the Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning and
Online Teaching (MERLOT) website contains a repository of online materials
and resources, many of which are completely open access, which means that they
are free of charge for instructors to download, copy, and use, but some copyright
and licensing restrictions may still apply. MERLOT offers a world languages
collection with over 3,000 online materials available in many commonly and
less commonly taught languages. Figure 3.4 presents an example of an online
material for instructing French civilization from the MERLOT website.
This particular resource includes audio, video, digital images, dialogues,
and online exercises. While this online resource provides rich cultural informa-
tion and artifacts, instructors may need to modify the content for learners with
varying levels of proficiency. This particular resource includes information on
 Teaching Language Online Is Special  145

Figure 3.4  MERLOT resource for teaching French civilization.

© Marie Ponterio, State University of New York at Cortland. Used with permission.

several topics. Therefore, specific notions that could be taught include the fol-
lowing: education, family life, government, national holidays, the environment,
vacations, health care, and transportation. A variety of language functions could
be taught within the real-world contexts listed above, but the grammatical forms
and vocabulary items that are covered would depend on the learner’s proficiency
level in the target language. For example, specific language functions for the
notion of schooling/education could be the following: talking about current
class schedules (Novice), talking about prior class schedules and comparing them
to current class schedules (Intermediate), or talking about ideal class schedules
and what could be improved upon in their current class schedules (Advanced).
In addition to the MERLOT website, several other websites such as the Center
for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA) and the Center
for Open Educational Resources and Language Learning (COERLL) offer
open-access online resources for language learning and teaching. These types
of resources could be employed when designing a notional/functional syllabus.

Rich Comprehensible Online Input

To integrate Guideline 3 from Table 3.1 (deliver 90% or more of the instruction
in the target language), it is necessary to provide ample amounts of rich, com-
prehensible online input for learners. According to Krashen’s input hypothesis
(1980, 1985), languages are acquired subconsciously by exposure to compre-
hensible input and input is the only necessary factor for language acquisition
to take place; therefore, students should be exposed to large amounts of target
146  Teaching Language Online Is Special

language input that is just beyond their current level of understanding (i + 1).
Krashen (1980, 1985) asserted that there is no distinction between child L1
acquisition and adult L2 acquisition and that innate mechanisms within the
human brain build an implicit linguistic system (also known as an internal
grammar) when learners are exposed to sufficient amounts of comprehensible
input. While some scholars may disagree with Krashen’s hypotheses (Long,
1981, 1983a, 1983b; Swain, 1983, 1985, 1995, 1998), it is generally accepted
that comprehensible input is a key component of the language acquisition
process.
Language instructors have the responsibility of making the target language
input comprehensible for learners. If exposure to the target language alone
were sufficient, everyone could learn an L2 simply by watching television or
listening to the radio; however, beginning-level students cannot learn an L2
this way because that would be i + 1000, or input that is far beyond their cur-
rent level of understanding. ACTFL recommends that 90% or more of instruc-
tional time should take place in the target language (ACTFL, 2017). This does
not mean that delivering instruction in the target language is sufficient for
language acquisition to take place; rather, language educators must engage in
strategy use to make the target language input comprehensible for learners.
Some of these strategies are similar to how caretakers talk to babies and young
children in their L1. Johnson (2018) reviewed the research on caretaker talk
and found that caretakers do the following: (1) slow down their rate of speech,
(2) repeat themselves, (3) simplify their speech, (4) use context (here and now)
to support meaning, (5) use speech that is well-formed and grammatical, and
(6) rough tune their speech. Rough tuning refers to using language that is
approximately at learners’ proficiency level, but that also includes forms, struc-
tures, and lexical items that are beyond learners’ current level of proficiency.
Caretakers do this naturally; however, language teachers usually fine tune their
speech, which means that they tend to use only the forms, structures, and
vocabulary that their students already know. Language teachers should try to
avoid this pitfall so that they can optimize, rather than hinder, the language
acquisition process. To make sure that their input is comprehensible to learn-
ers, language educators should incorporate the same techniques that caretakers
do when speaking to babies and young children in their L1; this is especially
important for beginning-level learners.
While the role of input is a major factor for language acquisition, instruc-
tors should keep in mind that producing output and interacting with others
are also necessary ingredients for language learning. Several prominent schol-
ars disagree with Krashen regarding his claim that input is the only necessary
 Teaching Language Online Is Special  147

condition for language acquisition to take place. Swain (1985, 1993, 1995,
1998) proposed the output hypothesis, which asserts that L2 students must be
pushed to produce output in the target language in order to process language
more deeply, attending to both meaning and linguistic form simultaneously.
According to Swain, learners must produce output to develop fluency and
accuracy in the target language. Furthermore, she claimed that output, in add-
ition to input, is a key factor in the acquisition process.
Similarly, Long (1981, 1983a, 1983b) set forth the interaction hypothesis,
which claims that learners acquire language by talking with others. In other
words, during conversations between native and nonnative speakers, the inter-
locutors work together to achieve mutual understanding. When misunder-
standings occur, the conversation must be repaired through the negotiation
of meaning (Long, 1981, 1983a, 1983b). Long (1996) revised and updated the
interaction hypothesis to include cognitive factors and he stated that selective
attention and processing capacity are what mediate the input that learners
receive during conversational interactions. In other words, learners must pay
attention to their input and as human beings, they are limited capacity pro-
cessors who can only take in, attend to, and process so much new information
at one time.
ACTFL (2017) provides a number of recommendations for using the target
language in the classroom, which include providing large amounts of com-
prehensible input, ample opportunities for learners to produce output, and
opportunities for learners to negotiate meaning with their instructor and their
peers. ACTFL (2017) also recommends that language instructors conduct fre-
quent comprehension checks, use contextual cues to support comprehension,
and elicit students’ production that increases in complexity, accuracy, and flu-
ency over time. It is noteworthy that ACTFL does not recommend prohibit-
ing the use of students’ native language in the L2 classroom; rather, if the L1 is
used, it should be in a limited way. For example, defining a vocabulary word
in the L1 when all other attempts at facilitating students’ understanding of
the meaning of the word have failed. However, ACTFL does not recommend
using the native language as the default for checking students’ comprehension
(ACTFL, 2017).
Online instructors should strive to adhere to ACTFL’s recommendations
with respect to the delivery of instructional content in the target language.
However, online instructors will often need to explain the course layout,
requirements, and expectations in the students’ native language to ensure that
they comprehend them. For example, course orientations, course policies,
course grading, information on exam dates and times, project instructions,
148  Teaching Language Online Is Special

and homework deadlines may need to be delivered in L1, especially for

beginning-­level language students, so that they understand the course design
and expectations. In other words, information on the structure and delivery
of the course will be clearer for students if it is delivered in their L1. The
instructional content, however, should always be delivered in the L2 in online
learning environments, whether the students are Novice, Intermediate, or
Advanced language learners.
There are a number of ways to provide rich comprehensible input for online
and blended learners; for example, teachers can make instructional videos that
tell a story using the targeted grammatical forms and structures. With video
input, visual cues facilitate students’ comprehension of target language mean-
ing. It is also possible to caption videos so that students can read along in the
target language while they simultaneously listen to the target language input.
Of course, teachers must speak slowly and clearly when recording audio and
video in the target language. Instructional videos that contain digital images
are also a great way to teach new vocabulary items. According to Egbert et al.
(2014), instructional videos are the central component of the pre-class mate-
rials in the L2 flipped learning approach. Similarly, instructional videos are
instrumental in teaching in online and blended environments too. Figure 3.5
displays a screenshot of an instructional video that was created to teach air-
port vocabulary. It uses simplified language that is more comprehensible for

Figure 3.5  Screenshot of a captioned instructional video using the Blackboard Collaborate
tool on D2L’s Brightspace platform.
D2L product screenshot reprinted with permission from D2L Corporation.
 Teaching Language Online Is Special  149

language learners. The target language input, in this case Spanish, was cap-
tioned and it appears at the bottom of the screen. This not only makes the
instructional video accessible for students who are deaf or hard of hearing, but
it also facilitates all students’ comprehension of the target language because
they are able to listen to and read the input at the same time.
There are numerous online tools and applications for creating and edit-
ing videos, but many of them are proprietary and have costs associated with
them. For instructors who teach at an institution with a learning management
system (LMS) in place, many of those—but not all—have screen recording
capabilities. In other words, instructors may create a PowerPoint presentation,
caption it, record a narration, and save it for playback as an MP4 (video) file
using features of the LMS. Other software applications can also be used to
create a slide presentation, including Keynote and Google slides (see Chapter 2
for information on how to do so); however, not all slide presentation software
is compatible with every LMS. With Blackboard Collaborate, for example,
only PowerPoint files can be uploaded into the virtual classroom space where
video recordings can be made.
For those who do not have an LMS in place or if their LMS does not
have the recording feature, there are several free online tools that are use-
ful for creating instructional videos, such as Screencast-O-Matic, which has
both a free and a paid version. While Screencast-O-Matic is described in
this chapter, other screen capturing tools such as Camtasia, Jing, Filmora,
Snagit, and Zoom are also available for making instructional videos through
screen casting. Screencast-O-Matic is described here to provide an example
of how online tools may be used to create instructional videos that contain
rich, comprehensible input. The eResources contain links for all of the tools
mentioned above.
Screencast-O-Matic is a computer-based application that allows users to
capture and record their screens, edit their recordings, and share them with
others. It is an ideal tool for educators who wish to create tutorials, lectures,
and/or demonstration videos. The free features allow users to record up to
15 minutes from either their computer screen or web cam. The recordings
may be saved as either YouTube videos or as MP4 video files, which can be
stored on the user’s computer or LMS.
Institutions or individuals may purchase licenses, which provide users
with extended features such as unlimited recording length, captioning capa-
bilities, and additional editing and web publishing tools. With the paid version,
the length of the video recordings is only limited by the user’s available hard
disk space. Screencast-O-Matic is a good fit for online, blended, and flipped
150  Teaching Language Online Is Special

Figure 3.6  Recording features of Screencast-O-Matic.

Used with permission.

learning environments because it provides captioning tools to ensure that the

instructional videos are accessible for students who are deaf or hard of hearing.
Moreover, the web publishing tools that are built into the application are rela-
tively easy to use. Figure 3.6 shows the recording features of Screencast-O-Matic.
Videos may be published either on the Screencast-O-Matic website or
on users’ own cloud services. In addition, the Screencast-O-Matic applica-
tion may be integrated into several LMS platforms and screen recorders may
be launched from within the LMS for ease of delivery. Figure 3.7 displays
Screencast-O-Matic’s video editing features.
Given that Screencast-O-Matic has a free version and that it is able to be
integrated into some LMS platforms, it is a good option for creating instruc-
tional videos that provide rich comprehensible input for online language learners.
Furthermore, the video captioning capabilities enable educators to create instruc-
tional materials that are fully accessible to students with diverse learning needs.

Lesson Design and Learner Prof iciency Level

According to Guideline 4 from Table 3.1, online language instructors
should base all online lessons on professional standards and what stu-
dents can actually do at the targeted proficiency level. As was discussed
 Teaching Language Online Is Special  151

Figure 3.7  Video editing features of Screencast-O-Matic.

Used with permission.

in Chapter 1, online courses can be delivered asynchronously (anytime/

anyplace learning) or synchronously (set online class meeting times). With
asynchronous delivery models, lessons are typically broken down into
weekly or bi-weekly modules (see Chapter 2 for a review of modules and
pacing). With synchronous models, online lessons are delivered in real time
during virtual class meetings.

Professional Standards
Irrespective of delivery mode, all online lessons or modules should be based
on professional standards because they provide a guiding framework for the
content that is covered and the skills that are developed; they also describe
what learners should know and be able to do at specific levels of proficiency.
Professional language learning standards create a roadmap that guides learn-
ers in their development of communicative and intercultural competence.
Therefore, building lessons based on professional standards helps ensure that
instruction is relevant, meaningful, and in keeping with what scholars and
practitioners know about how languages are learned in instructional settings.
Professional standards could also be used to create a measurable quality man-
agement system for language courses and programs, which is essential to
advance foreign language teaching and learning (Bärenfänger & Tschirner,
2008). Language educators should think of professional standards as the bed-
rock of their instruction; a useful analogy is that teaching without the use of
152  Teaching Language Online Is Special

professional standards would be like taking a cross-country road trip without

using a map. Professional standards provide the foundation for each lesson or
module in quality online, blended, or flipped language courses.
In the United States, the ACTFL World-Readiness Standards for Learning
Languages (National Standards Collaborative Board, 2015) are available for
world language teachers and the national World-Class Instructional Design
and Assessment (WIDA) Amplification of the English Language Development
(ELD) Standards Kindergarten–Grade 12 (WIDA, 2012) are available for
teachers of English as a second language (ESL). Many states have versions of
their own standards for foreign and second language learning; however, these
are typically based on national standards from ACTFL or WIDA. Europe and
other parts of the world use the Common European Framework of Reference
(CEFR) Standards for Languages: Learning,Teaching, and Assessment (Council
of Europe, 2011), which are published in 39 languages.

Proficiency Guidelines and Testing

Both ACTFL and CEFR also provide proficiency guidelines that are used
to determine students’ level based on the specific tasks that they are able to
perform in the target language. Similarly, the WIDA (2012) ELD standards
describe six levels of proficiency for English language learners as well as what
students should know and be expected to do with the language at each stage
of development by grade level.
ACTFL (2015) defines proficiency as “the ability to use language in real-
world situations in a spontaneous interaction and non-rehearsed context
in a manner acceptable and appropriate to native speakers of the language.
Proficiency demonstrates what a language user is able to do regardless of where,
when or how the language was acquired” (p. 4). Given this definition, profi-
ciency is assessed irrespective of any course, program, or curriculum, and learn-
ers must be able to use the language in both familiar and unfamiliar contexts.
ACTFL breaks proficiency into five levels (Novice, Intermediate, Advanced,
Superior, and Distinguished); with the Novice through Advanced levels, there
are three subcategories (Low, Mid, and High).Therefore, proficiency can range
from Novice Low through Advanced High prior to reaching the Superior
and Distinguished levels. The ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines (ACTFL, 2012)
provide detailed descriptions regarding what learners can and cannot do with
language at any of the given levels. Language Testing International (LTI) is a
licensee of ACTFL and they provide proficiency testing based on the ACTFL,
CEFR, and the Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) scale. The ILR is
the rating scale for the State Department’s Foreign Service Institute. LTI offers
 Teaching Language Online Is Special  153

testing in over 100 languages and their tests include the Oral Proficiency
Interview (OPI) and the computer-based Oral Proficiency Interview (OPIc)
to assess speaking proficiency. The OPI is a phone interview with a certified
tester, while the OPIc is a computer-based test that simulates a conversation
using an avatar. OPIc tests are recorded and certified raters review the record-
ings to determine a proficiency rating. LTI also offers a Writing Proficiency
Test (WPT), a Reading Proficiency Test (RPT), a Listening Proficiency Test
(LPT), and a Listening and Reading Computer Adaptive Test (L&Rcat). All
of LTIs proficiency tests use ACTFL certified raters who are subjected to rig-
orous training. In addition, LTI reports high levels of validity and reliability
for all of the proficiency tests listed above and each test yields an official pro-
ficiency score from ACTFL.
At the K-12 level in the United States, each school district will set profi-
ciency targets for their world language courses. Instructors can make use of
the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines (2012) to develop an understanding of
where their students are currently and what they should be able to do with the
language by the end of the course.They can also use these guidelines to create
formative and summative assessments to measure students’ progress toward
meeting proficiency benchmarks. Setting common proficiency targets is also
beneficial for standardizing language learning goals within departments and
across institutions within a district.
Similarly, standards-based language programs at the university level set
proficiency targets for all of the courses in their program, and courses are
typically articulated and sequenced so that students can begin at the Novice
Low level and move through the program until they reach the Intermediate
High or Advanced Low level of proficiency by the end of the program,
depending upon the target language studied. Proficiency benchmarks should
take into account the fact that most language learners can listen and read
on a higher level than they can speak and write. Proficiency targets are
especially important for teacher candidates, or those who are training to
become world language teachers. In order to teach a commonly taught
language such as Spanish, French, or German, ACTFL recommends that
instructors reach Advanced Low, which is the minimum proficiency needed
to provide sufficient comprehensible input for learners, regardless of the
level of language that is taught (ACTFL & Council for the Accreditation of
Educator Preparation [CAEP], 2013). In other words, even if instructors are
only teaching Novice students, they still need Advanced Low proficiency to
teach the language well.With some of the less commonly taught languages—
such as Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean—the minimum recommended
154  Teaching Language Online Is Special

proficiency level is Intermediate High (ACTFL & CAEP, 2013). This is a

key factor to take into consideration when designing online language pro-
grams because fewer than half of all undergraduate teacher candidates reach
ACTFL’s recommended minimum level of proficiency by graduation (Glisan,
Swender, & Surface, 2013). Therefore, the creation of well-articulated, profi-
ciency-based online language programs are of paramount importance for the
future of world language education.
Similar scales are available for those who teach language in settings outside
of the United States and for those who teach ESL within it. World language
educators in Europe and elsewhere use the CEFR scale, which is broken down
into three main levels (A or basic, B or independent, and C or proficient).
These levels are further broken down into subcategories that are marked with
either a 1 or a 2 (e.g., A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, and C2). Similar to the ACTFL
Proficiency Guidelines, the CEFR scale is used to describe proficiency at each
of these levels. The CEFR proficiency scale informs planning, instruction, and
assessment in Europe and beyond. Of note, research by Mosher, Slagter, and
Surface (2010) found no difference in raters’ ability to classify proficiency
accurately between the ACTFL and CEFR scales.
For those who teach ESL in the United States, English language learner
(ELL) proficiency is divided into six levels (Entering, Emerging, Developing,
Expanding, Bridging, and Reaching). Similar to the ACTFL and CEFR
guidelines, the WIDA (2012) amplified ELD standards document provides
a detailed description of what students can and cannot do at each level
of proficiency. Furthermore, the WIDA Assessing Comprehension and
Communication in English State-to-State (ACCESS) test is administered
yearly to ELLs in public schools. WIDA ACCESS scores are used for a
variety of purposes, including placement of ELLs, establishing program entry
and exit requirements, monitoring student progress, and informing instruc-
tion and assessment. A key difference between LTI and ACCESS testing in
the United States relates to cost. For world languages, state and federal fund-
ing is not provided for proficiency testing and learners must cover the costs
of their own testing if they wish to obtain an official proficiency rating. For
example, world language teacher candidates must pay for their own OPI in
states or programs that require it for certification. Conversely, Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Educational Opportunities Act
of 1974 require public schools to ensure that ELLs can participate equally
and meaningfully in educational programs. Therefore, each ELL must be
assessed when entering the K-12 school system and proficiency assess-
ment continues yearly until it is determined that the student has reached a
 Teaching Language Online Is Special  155

sufficient level of proficiency to participate in mainstream classes without

additional modifications or supports.
ESL instructors are provided with clear and detailed information regarding
their students’ proficiency levels, as the WIDA ACCESS test yields scores for
listening, speaking, reading, writing, oral language (listening and speaking),
literacy (reading and writing), and comprehension (reading and listening), as
well as an overall score (reading, writing, listening, and speaking). This type
of fine-grained analysis of student proficiency can help ESL teachers design
individualized instruction to meet students’ specific language learning needs.
Moreover, WIDA ACCESS scores can be used to create purposeful groupings
and/or pairings during lesson activities.
With respect to assessing world language students’ proficiency, several
open-access resources are highlighted in Chapter 4 for examining and assessing
learner language. These resources can help world language educators pinpoint
their students’ proficiency levels with some degree of accuracy (see Chapter
4 for further details). If world language educators have a good understanding
of their students’ proficiency levels, then they can better meet their students’
needs by differentiating their instruction (i.e., providing additional supports
and/or additional challenge as needed).

Language Learning Goals

Goal setting is an important part of language learning in all instructional set-
tings. Language educators use goals to inform their learning objectives, lesson
plans, and assessments, while language students use them to identify their
own learning goals and to chart their own progress. To help world language
instructors and students with the goal-setting process, the National Council
of State Supervisors for Languages (NCSSFL) and ACTFL created Can-Do
Statements (NCSSFL-ACTFL, 2017a). The Can-Do Statements are aligned
with the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines (2012) and the ACTFL Performance
Descriptors (2015) and they are broken down into proficiency benchmarks
(overarching language learning goals), performance indicators (steps needed
to reach goals), and examples (students’ language performance for a given
benchmark and indicator). These statements are not meant to be used as a
checklist; rather, they are intended to describe what learners at each profi-
ciency level are able to do over time in a wide variety of settings. They are a
powerful tool to help language educators understand what proficiency really
looks like in practice. The Can-Do Statements are highly specific; for example,
a Can–Do performance indicator for presentational communication at the
156  Teaching Language Online Is Special

Novice Low level is, “I can introduce myself using practiced or memorized
words and phrases, with the help of gestures or visuals” (NCSSFL-ACTFL,
2017a, p. 12). A number of examples are provided under this proficiency indi-
cator including, “I can write my name, age, and where I live on a simple form”
(NCSSFL-ACTFL, 2017a, p. 12). While the benchmarks and performance
indicators use some professional jargon, the examples use colloquial language
that is easily understood by students and instructors alike. The authors of this
book have trained and supervised numerous world language teacher candi-
dates and it is very easy for novice teachers and teacher candidates to overesti-
mate what students can actually do with the language, especially at the Novice
through Intermediate levels. The Can-Do Statements are a highly valuable
resource for ensuring that language educators assign appropriate tasks, activi-
ties, and assessments that are aligned with each level of proficiency as set forth
by the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines (2012). Students also find it meaningful
when they are able to create their own learning goals and measure their own
progress toward meeting them. Given that it takes many years to attain a high
level of proficiency in instructional contexts, setting their own goals—and
eventually meeting them—should help maintain students’ focus and motiva-
tion for language learning.
In addition to language learning goals, the NCSSFL-ACTFL (2017b)
Can-Do Statements also include goals for the development of intercultural
communicative competence (ICC). ICC refers to students’ ability to under-
stand their own and other cultures and to use this understanding to engage
in appropriate communication with those from diverse cultural backgrounds
(Byram, 1997). Global competence and ICC are closely related constructs and
the learning environments that foster global competence may provide the
optimal conditions for students’ development of ICC. According to ACTFL
(2014), global competence includes the ability to speak two or more languages
with cultural understanding and respect, and it is “developed and demonstrated
by investigating the world, recognizing and weighing perspectives, acquiring
and applying disciplinary and interdisciplinary knowledge, communicating
ideas, and taking action” (p. 1). Moreover, global competence is essential for
successful interactions between diverse groups of people in international,
national, and local settings.
The ICC Can-Do Statements include benchmarks (overarching goals) and
performance indicators (small steps needed to reach goals) that describe how
well students are able to investigate cultural practices and products to gain an
understanding of cultural perspectives. They also include benchmarks and
performance indicators related to how well students interact with others in
 Teaching Language Online Is Special  157

and/or from other cultures in terms of students’ language and behavior. An

example of an ICC performance indicator at the Novice level is the following:
“In my own and other cultures I can identify some typical products related
to familiar everyday life” (NCSSFL-ACTFL, 2017b, p. 5). There is also an
Intercultural Reflection Tool that was created by NCSSFL-ACTFL (2017c)
that students can use to reflect on their own development of ICC over time.
The ICC Can-Do Statements and Intercultural Reflection Tool are powerful
resources that enable language educators and students to set and measure goals
for the development of ICC. Given that students live in an increasingly glob-
alized and interconnected world, the development of ICC should be a key
component of any language course or program.
Similarly, the WIDA (2016) K-12 Can Do Descriptors, Key Uses Edition,
describe what ELLs can do at each level of proficiency by grade level. These
statements revolve around four key language uses, as follows, with respect to
the development of academic language: (1) recount, (2) explain, (3) argue, and
(4) discuss. After a careful review of the literature and a linguistic analysis of
the language needed for college and career readiness, WIDA selected the four
aforementioned key language uses, which are also academic language functions,
to be the focus of their Can Do Descriptors. One major difference between
teaching ESL and teaching a world language in the United States is the focus
of instruction. While world language classrooms (at the Novice Low through
Intermediate Mid levels) focus on the development of basic interpersonal
communicative skills (BICS), ESL instruction emphasizes the development
of cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP). While both BICS and
CALP are necessary to master a second language, ELLs tend to learn BICS
within two years during their everyday interactions while being immersed
in an English speaking context; however, it takes five to seven years for them
to acquire grade-level academic language (Cummins, 1984, 1991). Given this
long lag time between the development of BICS and CALP, a major goal of
ESL instruction is to teach academic language so that ELLs can perform at
grade level in this area. Conversely, most world language students are already
operating with CALP on their grade level in their L1, and they typically do
not have access to immersion in the target language environment. Therefore,
they are in greater need of BICS at the Novice through Intermediate levels of
instruction. The WIDA (2016) Can Do Descriptors also provide examples of
tasks and activities that foster each of the key language uses.
In summary, both the NCSSFL-ACTFL (2017a, 2017b) Can-Do Statements
and the WIDA (2016) Can Do Descriptors are valuable resources to assist with
goal setting and to inform planning, instruction, and assessment of student
158  Teaching Language Online Is Special

learning. Moreover, both of these resources are perfectly aligned with their
respective professional standards and proficiency guidelines and they both pro-
vide clear language regarding what students can actually do at their given level
of proficiency. The NCSSFL-ACTFL (2017b, 2017c) Can-Do Statements
also include resources for the development of ICC and global competence.

Lesson Design and the Three Modes of Communication

When designing lesson activities, Guideline 5 from Table 3.1 states that
instructors should avoid mechanical and pattern drill activities. These types
of activities are throwbacks from the audio-lingual method (ALM) of instruc-
tion, which is founded on the principles of behaviorism. In other words, this
outdated teaching method is based on the belief that languages are learned
through repetition, with learning taking place via conditioning and habit for-
mation. Furthermore, according to behaviorism, errors should be avoided at
all costs for fear that they may become ingrained. This often leads to overcor-
rection of students’ errors. Today, it is widely understood by practitioners and
scholars that ALM is not an effective instructional method. Languages cannot
be learned by rote memorization and grammar drills, and it is impossible to
learn a language without making mistakes. Moreover, the language acquisition
process is a complex phenomenon that cannot be explained fully by the tenets
of behaviorism. Unfortunately, ALM still exerts its influence today in terms
of the types of activities that can be found in foreign language textbooks and
resources, including those that are available online.

Pitfalls of Mechanical Drills

With ALM, lesson activities consist of mechanical or pattern drills—these are
activities where students fill in a blank with a specific target language form
or structure and the sentences in these activities are typically unrelated to
each other. Therefore, the learner quickly understands that the purpose of
the activity is simply to supply the correct grammatical form, not to make
or understand meaning in the target language. With mechanical drills, the
instructor has complete control over the response and there is only one pos-
sible correct answer. According to Paulston (1972), the goal of the mechanical
drill is to provide practice on target language structures in order for students to
move from repetition to self-expression without making grammatical errors.
Paulston (1972) created a taxonomy of practice types for foreign language
classrooms that includes three types of activities: mechanical, meaningful, and
communicative. While learners do not need to attach meaning to the input
 Teaching Language Online Is Special  159

sentences to complete mechanical activities, with meaningful activities, the

learner must attach meaning to the input sentence and to the response; how-
ever, there is only one correct answer that is already known by the teacher
or classmate (e.g., What color is my shirt?) Communicative activities are sim-
ilar to meaningful activities, but they include open-ended items with more
than one possible correct response (e.g., What are you doing this weekend?).
While Paulston created his taxonomy of practice types in 1972, many foreign
language textbooks that are currently available on the market in the United
States and elsewhere still place a heavy emphasis on mechanical drill activities,
while providing fewer meaningful and communicative activities.
A major drawback of mechanical drills is that students do not have to
understand the stimulus to produce a correct answer. For example, students
may conjugate the verbs correctly in mechanical drill activities by identifying
the subject pronoun of each sentence and supplying the correct verb forms;
however, while students’ answers may be correct, it is unclear whether they
understand the meaning of their responses in the target language. Research by
Wong and VanPatten (2003) indicates that mechanical and pattern drills are a
waste of instructional time because they do not promote L2 acquisition; there-
fore, they recommend that language educators bypass drills altogether in favor
of more communicative lesson activities.
The authors of this book estimate that up to 80% of the activities in pub-
lisher-created materials in print and online fall into the category of mechanical
or pattern drills. Therefore, extreme care must be taken when creating and/
or assigning lesson activities to ensure that students are not wasting their time
engaging in ineffective grammar drills. While students may learn the targeted
forms and structures in the short-term for course assessments, they will be
quickly forgotten unless they have the opportunity to use them in a more
meaningful way. Therefore, instructors should strive to incorporate mean-
ingful and communicative activities into their lessons rather than relying on
ineffectual and outdated mechanical drills. Language learning is promoted
when students engage in open-ended communicative activities; these are
activities where the teacher/peer does not know or cannot predict how the
student will respond in the target language.
Moreover, language educators should keep in mind that grammar should
not be the focus of instruction. Rather, grammar should be taught only to
support communication, with the focus on meaning rather than on form.
One way to do so is to teach grammar as a concept through story-based
language learning, as was described in the section on Glisan and Donato’s core
practices above. Richards (2006) recommends teaching grammar inductively,
160  Teaching Language Online Is Special

which can be achieved by providing students with target language examples

(aurally and in writing) and asking the students to figure out the grammar
rules from the examples.Yet another inductive technique is to flood the input
with the targeted forms and structures while using input enhancement tech-
niques to draw students’ attention to the targeted forms in their written input
materials. According to Sharwood Smith (1991), input enhancement is any
technique that highlights specific features of the written input, which can be
achieved through changes in font style/size, underlining, bolding, or through
the use of color. Russell (2014) found that beginning-level Spanish language
learners were able to acquire the future tense with this approach. Even though
the students in her study did not have any formal instruction on the Spanish
future tense, they were able to use it correctly after reading several passages that
were flooded with textually enhanced future tense forms.
Another way to teach grammar communicatively is to use processing instruc-
tion (PI), which is a research-based technique that requires learners to process
target language forms correctly in order to extract meaning. This technique is
based on VanPatten’s model of input processing (1993, 1996, 2002, 2004), which
is a set of principles that describe how L2 learners initially process or parse their
L2 input. However, this pedagogical intervention is only effective for grammatical
forms that carry semantic meaning (e.g., -ed = past tense in English) and it is not
effective for targeted forms that only carry grammatical information such as defi-
nite articles. Lee andVanPatten (2003) suggested that PI should be used whenever
instructors anticipate that their learners will experience a processing problem. For
example, Spanish language learners who are native English speakers typically have
difficulty processing object pronouns in Spanish; they often confuse subject and
object pronouns in the target language input that they read or hear because the
subject pronoun is frequently dropped in Spanish. While PI is a highly effective,
meaning-focused technique for teaching grammar, it is somewhat challenging to
design and implement. Lee and VanPatten’s 2003 book is recommended reading
for those who are interested in this research-based instructional technique that
enables students to make form-meaning connections when learning L2 grammar
(see suggestions for further reading at the end of this chapter).
A number of effective techniques for teaching grammar—such as story-based
language learning, input flooding, textual input enhancement, and PI—were
described above. These pedagogical interventions keep the focus on target
language meaning rather than focusing on form. They should be implemented
in flipped, blended, and online language learning environments as good alter-
natives to the mechanical drill activities that are prevalent in many of the pub-
lisher-created materials that are currently widely available in print and online.
 Teaching Language Online Is Special  161

Communicative Online Activities

Creating and delivering communicative online activities enables language edu-
cators to incorporate Guidelines 6 and 7 from Table 3.1. Guideline 6 (facili-
tate student-student and student-teacher interaction in the target language
to promote the negotiation of meaning) and Guideline 7 (engage students
in open-ended communication where they can create with language) can be
promoted with meaningful and open-ended activities in which learners are
engaged in three modes of communication: interpretive, interpersonal, and
presentational. The interpretive mode refers to students’ comprehension of
written, visual, or aural target language input, the interpersonal mode encom-
passes all person-to-person synchronous communication in the L2, and the
presentational mode denotes all spoken and written target language output
that students have had time to prepare, practice, and/or rehearse in advance.
Students may engage in interpretive reading, viewing, or listening and pre-
sentational speaking or writing. The interpersonal mode typically occurs in
the spoken modality, but in online environments, it could also occur through
texting or chatting. The interpersonal mode of communication must occur
synchronously (at the same time), while the presentational mode may occur
either synchronously or asynchronously (at different times). An example of
synchronous communication would be two people talking on the telephone
or via Skype. Conversely, an example of asynchronous communication would
be one person posting a message on a discussion board and another person
answering it a few hours, or a few days, later.
Some online tools for engaging students in all three modes of communica-
tion are outlined below. Please note that these tools are not meant to be pre-
scriptive. They are included only to show examples of how to use online tools
to teach communicatively. Language educators are encouraged to explore new
tools and to use applications that they know or have access to in order to pro-
mote open-ended communication, the negotiation of meaning, and creative
language use among students.
To facilitate practice in the interpretive mode, instructors may provide
online reading and listening passages for their students, but it is important
to keep a few things in mind when facilitating students’ reading and lis-
tening comprehension skills in the target language. For example, comprehen-
sion skills precede production skills. This means that students will be able to
listen and read at a higher level than they can speak and write in the target
language. Therefore, it is OK to challenge students with written and aural target
language input that is beyond their current level. L2 learners often struggle with
162  Teaching Language Online Is Special

comprehension skills because they typically engage in bottom-up processing.

This means that they decode messages by paying attention to the details. In other
words, L2 learners try to understand sentences and utterances by attempting to
comprehend one word at a time. Conversely, native speakers usually engage in
top-down processing first, which means that they decode messages by using
their background knowledge to make predictions. After using top-down pro-
cessing, native speakers engage in bottom-up processing to check the details of
the passage against their predictions.Therefore, language teachers can promote
top-down processing by helping students tap into their background knowl-
edge in their L1. Background knowledge in the L1 can transfer over and help
students comprehend input in the L2. It will be helpful to remind students to
examine the type of text that they are reading in the target language (e.g., a
poem, an advertisement, a diary entry, etc.) and then ask them to think about
the kind of language that is used in that specific text type in their L1.There are
likely to be similarities that will help facilitate their comprehension in the L2.
Similarly, students’ knowledge of the world can also be tapped to help them
engage in top-down processing. If they are reading a passage about a young
person who lives in a city in a target language country, the teacher could
prompt them to think about what they know about city living (e.g., apartment
buildings, public transportation, crowds, etc.). Asking students to make predic-
tions about what they will read or hear and providing an advanced organizer
(an oral, written, or visual outline of the new information that they are about
to hear or read) also facilitates top-down processing. Providing visual images
that coincide with reading and/or listening passages fosters students’ compre-
hension of target language as well. It is also possible to caption videos in the
target language and some video platforms such as Yabla and This Is Language
(TIL), which are discussed below, even allow users to slow down the rate of
speech in video input.
There are numerous online tools available that can be used to provide
practice for students in the three modes of communication. For example, to
stimulate the interpretive listening mode, Yabla is an application that makes
authentic movies and television shows comprehensible for learners. It does
this in three ways, (1) teachers may allow videos to show captions in the
target language or in English, (2) students are able to slow down the videos
and to rewind and replay segments of videos with Yabla’s video player, and (3)
written transcripts of videos are also available for students to assist their com-
prehension.The video content that is available on Yabla includes music videos,
documentaries, interviews, travel and cooking shows, soap operas, and more.
 Teaching Language Online Is Special  163

Figure 3.8 presents a screenshot of Yabla’s home page, which displays the var-
ious languages that are available on the Yabla platform.

Figure 3.8  Screenshot of Yabla’s home page.

Used with permission.

All of the video content is authentic, meaning that is was made by and/
or for native speakers. This exposes students to the target language culture(s),
to authentic target language accents, and to other sociolinguistic information
that is socially and culturally appropriate. At this time,Yabla videos are available
in Chinese, Italian, Spanish, French, German, and English. Yabla also provides
a free 90-day trial for language educators. Similarly, TIL provides over 5,000
videos on common topics that are covered in the secondary and postsecondary
curricula, such as friends and family, free time and leisure, education and work,
home and health, and holidays and travel. TIL offers videos in ESL, French,
German, Italian, and Spanish; moreover,TIL creates their own authentic videos
with native speakers who are young people (not actors) talking about their
daily lives.Videos are never shot twice, which means that they are natural and
authentic. Therefore, this is an outstanding resource to help students acquire
pragmatic competence in the target language.
While applications such as Yabla and TIL facilitate interpretive listening
skills (and pragmatics), two applications that are useful for stimulating pre-
sentational speaking are PhotoStory 3 and VoiceThread. PhotoStory 3 is an
application that is used for digital storytelling, which is the practice of tell-
ing stories through the use of computer-based tools. Similar to traditional
storytelling, digital stories enable individuals to present their point of view
164  Teaching Language Online Is Special

Figure 3.9  Overview of the capabilities of Photo Story 3.

Used with permission from Microsoft.

on a specific topic. Digital stories typically contain a mixture of computer-

based images, text, recorded audio narration, video clips, and music. This
application allows students to practice their presentational speaking within a
meaningful cultural context through the use of authentic images and music.
Figure 3.9 provides an overview of the capabilities of the Photo Story 3
application.
To create a digital story using this application, students would narrate ten
to fifteen digital images in the target language with the option of playing
target culture music in the background. The application also provides space
for students to type their script, which can be used to assist the narration pro-
cess. The Photo Story 3 application automatically adds effects to still images,
such as panning and zooming, to help capture viewers’ attention. Students
may alter the preset panning and zooming effects to create their own effects.
Furthermore, Photo Story 3 enables users to add text, such as titles and cap-
tions, as well as other graphics to images. It also allows users to save their
digital stories as project files, which can be edited at a later time, or they may
be saved as Windows Media Video (WMV) files, which can be stored on the
user’s computer or uploaded to the LMS. Digital stories may also be sent to
others via e-mail if the file size is small enough. Photo Story 3 is available as a
 Teaching Language Online Is Special  165

free download. Students should also be encouraged to use their own personal
technologies, such as videos shot on their mobile phones, for creating digital
stories.
VoiceThread is another effective tool to stimulate presentational speaking.
It is a media player that contains a built-in online discussion space. Teachers
are able to upload media such as PowerPoint presentations, images, documents,
or videos to an online collection that has the appearance of a slide show. After
the media is added, both instructors and students are able to post comments
in which they engage in an on-going asynchronous discussion of the topic.
The discussions are asynchronous because students do not have to be on the
VoiceThread platform at the same time. Rather, they may post their comments
and replies during the days and times that are convenient for them prior to
the instructor’s due date for the assignment. During these online discussions,
students may ask and answer each other’s questions and critique each other’s
comments. Moreover, comments may be made with video and audio (using a
web cam), with audio (using an external microphone or telephone), or via text
(using the computer’s keyboard). If users opt to make their audio recordings
using a telephone, they are provided with a phone number and pin. Figure 3.10
demonstrates how to use VoiceThread to engage beginning-level learners in
presentational speaking.

Figure 3.10  Using VoiceThread to stimulate presentational speaking among beginning-level

Spanish language learners.
166  Teaching Language Online Is Special

In online, blended, or flipped L2 classrooms,VoiceThread provides students

with a space to engage in presentational speaking in the target language. In
addition to using VoiceThread for interactive voice boards, students may create
individual presentations by uploading and narrating a single image or slide,
an entire PowerPoint presentation, or a video that they shoot with their cell
phone or digital camera.
To promote interpersonal speaking in online and blended environments,
conversation platforms enable students to engage in synchronous conver-
sations with native speakers. Some conversation platforms that are avail-
able include LinguaMeeting (Wiley’s En Vivo application uses this platform),
Speaky, TalkAbroad, and WeSpeke. These applications allow individual stu-
dents or small groups of students to interact with native speakers for up to
30 minutes at a time. The course instructor may add assignments, guiding
questions, and/or instructions for the students’ conversation partners. Some
of the applications allow the conversations to be recorded and stored on
the vendor’s website. All of the platforms listed above, except for WeSpeke,
have costs associated with them and they have a limited number of avail-
able languages. WeSpeke is a free conversation exchange platform that has
130 available languages; however, students must find their own conversation
partner and they must take turns speaking in the target language and in
English with their partners. Because many individuals around the world are
engaged in learning English, it is relatively easy for students to locate part-
ners who are native speakers of the target language. More information on
free conversation tools is available in Chapter 2.
Conversation platforms have revolutionized online language course
delivery because it is extremely difficult for one instructor to have extended
conversations in the target language with each student. The one-on-one to
small group synchronous interactions in the target language that occur on
these platforms facilitate the negotiation of meaning, which is critical for the
language acquisition process. Conversation platforms bring the language to
life for online, blended, and flipped learners, and they help students understand
the real-world applications of being able to communicate with native speakers
of the target language.
There are also several platforms that allow students to practice interpersonal
writing via text chat such as Bilingua, HelloTalk, HiNative, and Tandem. Most
of these applications are free, but students must locate a conversation partner
and take turns texting in the target language and in English.While the authors
do not endorse any particular conversation platform, they do encourage
online, blended, and flipped language instructors to explore all of the available
 Teaching Language Online Is Special  167

options to determine which one(s) best meet the needs of their students and
their own unique instructional contexts.
While several specific tools were mentioned above, it is important to note
that any tool or application may be used provided that the following elements
are present in the course: (1) learners receive ample comprehensible input in
the target language, (2) learners have opportunities to produce output in the
target language, and (3) learners have interactions with others in the target
language. For online course delivery, it is often easier for instructors to use the
technology tools and applications that are available at their institutions because
then the institution, and not the instructor, is responsible for providing tech-
nical support to students in the event that they need it, which lifts some of the
burden off of the instructor.

Authentic Materials
Guideline 8 from Table 3.1 is to integrate authentic materials, which are mate-
rials and resources that were created by and/or for native speakers of the
target language. Infusing the course with authentic materials is of paramount
importance in online, blended, or flipped language learning environments.
Authentic materials allow students to read and/or listen to the language as
it is used by native speakers in everyday situations. Galloway (1998) defined
authentic texts as those that are “written by members of a language and cul-
ture group for members of the same language and culture group” (p. 133).
Exposure to authentic texts and materials provides students with perspectives
from the target language culture(s) on events, issues, themes, and concepts.
ACTFL advocates fostering students’ understandings of cultural products,
practices, and the perspectives that underpin them, and one way to do so
is to expose students to authentic materials. The ACTFL World-Readiness
Standards for Learning Languages (National Standards Collaborative Board,
2015) include two Cultures standards as follows: (1) “Learners use the language
to investigate, explain, and reflect on the relationship between the practices
and perspectives of the cultures studied” and (2) “Learners use the language to
investigate, explain, and reflect on the relationship between the products and
perspectives of the cultures studied” (p. 1).
With respect to the ACTFL Cultures standards, authentic reading mate-
rials help students learn about the daily practices and products of the target
language cultures and the perspectives that inform them. There are numerous
authentic materials available on the Internet that may be curated to create cul-
tural lessons. For example, the Newseum website provides the front pages of
168  Teaching Language Online Is Special

more than 2,000 newspapers from around the world. While this website only
offers the front page stories, it is possible for students to see different cultural
perspectives on the same news story from different countries where the target
language is spoken. Students may also compare perspectives on the same story
between the target language country and their own country.
Front pages are available from various regions of the word including Africa,
Asia, the Caribbean, Europe, the Middle East, North America, Oceania, and
South America. Figure 3.11 depicts the landing page for Today’s Front Pages.
It is important for instructors to keep in mind that the newspapers are uned-
ited and appear in their original “authentic” format. Therefore, L2 instructors,
especially those who teach at the K-12 level, may wish to preview the materi-
als to make sure that they are appropriate for younger learners before sharing
the front page stories with students.
For Novice learners, simply pointing out the differences in the size and
placement of the same headline that is covered in newspapers from different
countries or regions is a good starting point. Some discussion in English on
the cultural, political, and geographical similarities and differences between the
two countries will promote the development ICC. Intermediate-level learn-
ers should be able to read the two articles with scaffolding from the instructor
(e.g., providing background information and defining key vocabulary items),
and Advanced-level learners should be able to discuss the similarities and differ-
ences between the perspectives of two different countries in the target language.

Figure 3.11  Today’s front pages from the Newseum website.

Courtesy Newseum.
 Teaching Language Online Is Special  169

In addition to Today’s Front Pages, there are numerous other websites that
feature authentic materials that may be used for language learning, including
several that were featured in this chapter (e.g., CARLA, COERLL, LangMedia,
MERLOT, TIL, and Yabla). Authentic texts that are incorporated into lesson
activities should be age appropriate, context appropriate, and at the appro-
priate level of difficulty for students’ proficiency level with the assistance of
scaffolding from the instructor. While it may take time for language instruc-
tors to search the Internet and to create activities that promote awareness of
cultural products and practices and the perspectives that underpin them, expo-
sure to authentic materials not only adds interest for language learners, but it
also helps them recognize that there is a whole population of speakers of the
target language in the world who have rich and diverse cultural perspectives
(ACTFL, 2014).

Creating a Meaningful Cultural Context

Guideline 9 from Table 3.1 is to create a meaningful cultural context for
language instruction. Perhaps the most straightforward way to do this is
to incorporate ACTFL’s two Communities standards: (1) “Learners use the
language both within and beyond the classroom to interact and collaborate
in their community and the globalized world,” and (2) “Learners set goals
and reflect on their progress in using languages for enjoyment, enrichment,
and advancement” (National Standards Collaborative Board, 2015, p. 1). It
should be noted that language instructors often find that these two standards
are the most challenging to implement due to time constraints, a lack of
resources, and other factors. However, there are a number of ways to imple-
ment them in the online environment that would facilitate Guideline 9 as
described below.
One way to create a meaningful cultural context in online classes is to cre-
ate a language partnership or exchange. This type of activity allows students
to interact with their peers from the target language culture. Students will
typically spend half of the time communicating in the target language and the
other half of the time communicating in English (to help the conversation
partner). Technology such as Skype or other video conferencing platforms
may be used for these conversations. There are also several free websites such
as Italki and The Mixxer that help students locate conversation exchange part-
ners. However, it may be difficult to hold learners accountable and/or grade
their work on free language exchange platforms such as these. Regardless of the
platform used, instructors should provide guiding topics or questions to ensure
170  Teaching Language Online Is Special

that students maximize their linguistic and cultural exposure during conversa-
tions with their partners. If the platform has the capability to record and store
conversations, then students should be required to listen to the recordings
and to reflect on how they could improve their fluency and accuracy in sub-
sequent conversations. See Chapter 2 for more information on developing
language partnerships and exchanges.
Creating a language exchange may be time consuming, but it is a pow-
erful way to connect students to the target language community beyond the
walls of the classroom, whether those walls are virtual or traditional. This
type of activity would also meet the first Communities standard listed above.
Furthermore, by interacting with native speaker peers, language students will
develop a deeper understanding of cultural products and practices as well as
the perspectives that underpin them.
Another way of creating a meaningful cultural context is to have students
curate the cultural artifacts that they find on the Internet, which they will then
order and display using websites or blogs. During the curation process, students
sort through a large amount of Internet-based content. After selecting the cul-
tural artifacts that interest them, the students will organize the artifacts in a
meaningful way that can be shared with their instructor and peers. Students
may work either individually or in groups. When instructors require that stu-
dents only curate authentic materials—those that are created by and/or for
native speakers of the language—learners are exposed to the target language
as it is used in its natural social and cultural context. Furthermore, when stu-
dents select materials that are of interest or relevance to themselves, the lesson
content becomes more meaningful to them. For example, the instructor may
ask students to find examples of dance in Spain. While some students may
opt to research traditional flamenco dancing, others may choose to research
more modern dance such as salsa, which originated in Latin America, but
is currently popular among young people in Spain. The curation of cultural
artifacts is an excellent way for students to learn about the target language
and culture simultaneously. In addition, this type of activity meets the second
Communities standard above with respect to students’ use of the language for
enrichment and enjoyment. If instructors do not have access to an LMS with
built-in blog or wiki tools, open-access websites such as Cool Tools for School,
WordPress, and Wakelet are useful for student curations.
While language exchanges and student curations may take some time to
implement, online instructors can also create a meaningful cultural context
simply by engaging students in real-world communication. Placing students in
 Teaching Language Online Is Special  171

pairs or small groups to discuss topics that are relevant to them–such as their
daily lives, schedules, interests, and concerns–ensures that their communica-
tion is meaningful and authentic. As long as students are communicating real-
world information, then instruction is occurring within a meaningful cultural
context. Activities that promote real-world interactions should be employed
in online, blended, and flipped learning environments.

Holistic Grading and Corrective Feedback

Guideline 10 from Table 3.1 (grade students holistically and provide appro-
priate corrective feedback) pertains to assessing student learning. All learners
make mistakes during the language acquisition process and it is important to
help students understand that it will be impossible for them to speak or write
with perfect accuracy, even after studying the target language for many years.
Language instructors also need to recognize that our goal is to foster students’
development as “successful multicompetent speakers, not failed native speakers”
(Cook, 1999, p. 204). Nonetheless, many students fear making mistakes, so it
is necessary to create a learning environment that encourages all students to
communicate in the target language, even when their language production is
inaccurate. When instructors place emphasis on meaning rather than on form,
students will likely feel less inhibited and less anxious about expressing them-
selves in the target language. To encourage students to speak in the target
language despite their inaccuracies, instructors should not penalize them
for each and every mistake that they make in their written and/or oral pro-
duction. Rather than counting errors and tallying a score based on students’
accuracy, rubrics may be used to evaluate specific criteria holistically, with
grammatical accuracy being only one criterion among many. This type
of grading focuses on the overall quality of students’ work rather than
on individual errors. When assessing students’ production at the Novice
through Intermediate levels, the most important thing to consider is
whether they are able to get their meaning across so that a sympathetic
native speaker could understand them. Therefore, certain types of errors—
such as pronunciation—may be a more important factor than grammatical
accuracy when students attempt to convey meaning in the target language.
As students advance in their language learning, instructors could then begin
to increase their expectations regarding students’ fluency and accuracy. This
increase in student expectations should accompany lesson tasks and activities
that build in complexity over time.
172  Teaching Language Online Is Special

The ACTFL Performance Descriptors for Language Learners (ACTFL,

2015) are useful for creating grading rubrics for online, blended, or flipped
learning because they contain specific descriptions of the type of language
that learners can produce as a result of explicit instruction at three main levels
(Novice, Intermediate, and Advanced). The ACTFL Performance Descriptors
were created to accompany the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines (ACTFL,
2012), which are used to evaluate an individual’s functional language ability
irrespective of how a learner may have acquired the language (e.g., class-
room-based learning, heritage language learning, immersion). See Chapter
5 for a detailed description of the ACTFL Performance Descriptors and the
current research findings on using rubrics and performance-based assess-
ments in the world language curriculum.
While proficiency and performance are related constructs, there is a key
difference in how they are each assessed. In instructional settings, perfor-
mance—rather than proficiency—is generally measured. For example, in
educational contexts, instructors will set an instructional goal and write
specific learning objectives for their lessons with the overall learning goal
in mind. Students will then practice and rehearse the language functions
and vocabulary items that pertain to the instructional goals and object-
ives (during class time and for homework). While students learn the new
content, the instructor continually assesses student learning with formative
assessments, which measure students’ progress toward meeting the learning
goals and objectives. Instructors may also determine whether certain con-
tent must be re-taught or if more or less time needs to be spent on specific
topics based on the results of formative assessments. Finally, a summative
assessment is administered that measures student mastery of the content that
was taught in a learning segment or unit of instruction. An example of a
summative performance-based assessment is a student giving an oral presen-
tation on how to cook a specific dish from the target language culture after
learning food/kitchen vocabulary, command forms, and cultural informa-
tion surrounding cuisine in the target language culture.
Proficiency, on the other hand, is not tied to any specific course or curric-
ulum. It measures a learner’s ability to use the language in various contexts,
with the linguistic content being very broad and touching on a wide range of
real-world topics. An example of a proficiency assessment is the ACTFL OPI,
which was described earlier in the chapter.
By using the ACTFL Performance Descriptors to create rubrics for both
formative and summative assessments, language educators can help ensure
that their instruction adheres to CLT. In online and blended courses, it is
 Teaching Language Online Is Special  173

particularly important that students understand how they will be assessed on

each assignment, assessment, and/or interaction. Online instructors should
post the grading rubrics for all items of consequence in the course prior to
the due dates. It is also a good practice to provide students with examples of
target-level performance. For example, if Novice High students are expected
to write a paragraph in the target language, the instructor could post a
sample paragraph that uses simple sentences and structures. Often students
who are adults or adolescents attempt to speak or write on a level that is
much higher than their current proficiency level in the target language. This
often results in production that is riddled with so many errors that it is not
comprehensible. Students may then examine the rubrics, assessment criteria,
and examples so that they have a solid understanding of exactly what is
expected of them.
The ACTFL Performance Descriptors are a good starting point for the cre-
ation of rubrics because they provide clear language that addresses the three
modes of communication (interpretive, interpersonal, and presentational)
across seven domains as follows: functions, contexts and content, text
type, language control, vocabulary, communication strategies, and cul-
tural awareness (ACTFL, 2015). The first three address the parameters
for language learning and the final four address how well a student is
able to make and understand meaning in the target language. Each of
these parameters is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 5 along with the
research on assessment.
For those who teach ESL, the WIDA Performance Definitions (2018a,
2018b) for both Listening/Reading and Speaking/Writing are valuable
resources for creating rubrics that are tied to each of the six levels of English
language development. These documents provide specific language that
describes target-level performance across three criteria: linguistic complexity,
language forms and conventions, and vocabulary usage. The definitions are
also well aligned with the WIDA (2012) ELD standards and the WIDA (2016)
Can Do Descriptors.
While the ACTFL Performance Descriptors may be used for a rubric’s
content (e.g., mode of communication, domain, and evaluation criteria), there
are several open-access websites that provide technology tools for creating
customizable online rubrics. These include the following: Annenberg Learner,
RubiStar, Teachnology, and RubricMaker. It is also helpful to include space
for instructor comments/feedback as well as space for students to reflect on
their own learning. Students may also be encouraged to rate themselves on the
rubric and to compare their ratings with those of the instructor.
174  Teaching Language Online Is Special

While it is not necessary to correct each and every mistake, language

educators must provide their students with negative evidence, or what is
not possible in a language, to facilitate the language acquisition process
(Ellis, 1994; Long, 1996). Corrective feedback may be either written or oral
in an online, blended, or flipped language class. There are several free tools
that are useful for providing oral feedback for students including Audacity,
Online Voice Recorder, and Vocaroo. Audacity is an application that enables
users to create and edit audio files. Vocaroo and Online Voice Recorder are
more simple tools that allow for audio recording but not editing. Audio
feedback allows instructors to correct students’ pronunciation errors. This
is of particular importance in online classes that are asynchronous because
the students do not have regular class meetings in which their pronuncia-
tion may be corrected. Audio feedback may also help students improve their
listening skills in the target language. When providing audio feedback, it is
important for the instructor to speak clearly, to have a tone that is motivating
and positive rather than critical, and to give positive as well as negative feed-
back so that the learner is not discouraged.
There are numerous ways to provide written feedback for students in
online, blended, or flipped classes. For example, instructors may use the track
changes feature in Microsoft Word to leave comments; they may send writ-
ten feedback via e-mail, text, or chat; or they may use an application such as
Lino or Padlet, where instructors can leave feedback and communicate with
students regarding their errors and/or answer their questions about their feed-
back in a collaborative whiteboard space. Google docs also allows instructors
to edit and/or comment on their students’ written work.
Regardless of the tool or application that is used to provide written cor-
rective feedback, it is helpful for language instructors to use a correction
code. With correction codes, symbols are used to indicate specific mistakes
(e.g., w/o = incorrect word order). When students are allowed to re-write
their written work after viewing the instructor feedback using a correc-
tion code, they not only improve their written production, but they also
gain metalinguistic awareness about how the language works because they
must look up each error and understand exactly why their production was
inaccurate.
In summary, language instructors should focus on meaning rather than
on form with respect to grading students’ work and correcting their errors.
If their production could be comprehensible to a sympathetic native
speaker, even if they have inaccuracies, then students should be rewarded
for making meaning in the target language. A benefit of online language
 Teaching Language Online Is Special  175

learning is that students often submit recordings of their oral work and
online instructors can correct students’ production and pronunciation
errors asynchronously using technology tools and applications. Therefore,
online learners are likely to feel less embarrassment about their oral error
corrections because these can be done in private—using the tools listed
above—rather than in front of their peers. Finally, the ACTFL Performance
Descriptors (2015), for those who teach a world language, or the WIDA
(2018a, 2018b) Performance Definitions, for those who teach English as
a second or foreign language, are useful resources for the development of
rubrics that grade students holistically.

Conclusion
If language educators follow the ten guidelines listed above when deliv-
ering online, blended, or flipped language instruction, then they can rest
assured that they are adhering to the major tenets of CLT and that the
learning environments they create are communicative. It is possible to teach
communicatively in online environments; however, it takes some fore-
thought as well as the inclusion of instructional technologies that facilitate
communication in the target language. As a final thought, technologies are
always changing and evolving. Therefore, it is not the tool or application
that makes online communicative language teaching happen; rather, it is
the instructor’s knowledge of online language pedagogy, which is knowl-
edge of the pedagogy and technology for teaching language online—the
focus of this chapter. Numerous resources for professional development in
online language pedagogy are described in detail in Chapter 4. Readers
who have little or no experience teaching in online, blended, or flipped
learning environments are strongly encouraged to explore these resources
and to plug into an online community of practice, several of which are
listed in the next chapter.

Key Takeaways
●● Language instructors need professional development, resources, and sup-
port to transition effectively from the traditional to the online, blended, or
flipped learning environment.
●● Students’ development of communicative competence should be the
overarching goal of every language course, irrespective of the delivery
mode (traditional, online, blended, or flipped).
176  Teaching Language Online Is Special

●● Internet-based resources, such as authentic audio and video clips, show

students how the target language is spoken among native speakers in
natural sociocultural contexts. Therefore, these resources may be supe-
rior to language textbooks for facilitating learners’ communicative
competence.
●● Following the guidelines listed in Table 3.1 will help ensure that online,
blended, and flipped language courses are taught communicatively (using
the CLT approach).

Discussion Questions
1. Many educators are tempted to teach the way that they were taught, even
if those methods were ineffective or outdated. What methods did your
language instructors use? Did they teach communicatively? Do you strive
to teach communicatively? How will you enact CLT in online, blended,
or flipped learning environments?
2. Do you facilitate your students’ development of sociolinguistic and
strategic competence? If so, how do you do this? How will you
facilitate these competencies in online, blended, or flipped learning
environments?
3. Do you agree with Glisan and Donato’s (2017) core teaching practices?
Why (not)? Are you able to enact all of these practices in the traditional
brick-and-mortar environment? Do you think it will be more challen-
ging to enact them in online, blended, or flipped learning environments?
Why (not)?
4. Glisan and Donato (2017) advocate the PACE model. Do you agree that
this is a good technique for teaching L2 grammar? Why (not)? Do you
think it will be effective for instructing all grammatical forms (both simple
and complex forms)? In your opinion, how difficult would it be to use the
PACE/story-based approach for teaching grammar in traditional versus
online environments?
5. Do you think it will be challenging to incorporate the ten guidelines for
teaching communicatively in online, blended, and flipped learning envir-
onments? Why (not)? Which ones do you think will be easy to incorporate?
Which ones will be difficult?
6. A number of online tools and resources were mentioned in this chapter.
Which ones will you integrate into your online, blended, or flipped
language classes? Can you think of any novel ways of using these resources
that were not mentioned in the chapter?
 Teaching Language Online Is Special  177

Suggestions for Further Reading

Communicative Language Teaching:
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative
approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics,
1(1), 1–47.
Lee, J. F., & VanPatten, B. (2003). Making communicative language teaching hap-
pen (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Wong, W., & VanPatten, B. (2003). The evidence is IN: Drills are OUT.
Foreign Language Annals, 36(3), 403–423.

Core Practices for Language Instruction:

Glisan E. W., & Donato, R. (2017). Enacting the work of language instruction:
High leverage teaching practices. Alexandria, VA: The American Council on
the Teaching of Foreign Languages.

Learner Curation of Authentic Materials:

Mathieu, L., Murphy-Judy, K., Godwin-Jones, R., Middlebrooks, L., &
Boykova, N. (2019). Learning in the open: Integrating language and cul-
ture through student curation, virtual exchange, and OER. In A. Comas-
Quinn, A. Beaven, & B. Sawhill (Eds.), New case studies of openness in
and beyond the language classroom (pp. 65–82). Research-publishing.net.
https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2019.37.967

PACE/Story-Based Approach:
Donato, R., & Adair-Hauck, B (2016). PACE: A story-based approach for
dialogic inquiry about form and meaning. In J. Shrum & E. W. Glisan
(Authors), Teacher’s handbook: Contextualized language instruction 5th ed.,
(pp. 206–230). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Project-Based Language Learning:

National Foreign Language Resource Center at the University of Hawaii at
Manoa (2020). Project-based language learning. Retrieved from http://nflrc
.hawaii.edu/projects/view/2014A/

Task-Based Teaching:
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, U.K.:
Oxford University Press.
178  Teaching Language Online Is Special

González-Lloret, M. (2016). A practical guide to integrating technology into task-

based language teaching. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.

Teaching Pragmatics:
Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. D. (2010). Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where
language and culture meet. New York, NY: Routledge.

Note
1 The LangMedia “Spanish in Mexico” videos were produced by the Five
College Center for World Languages with funding from the National
Security Education Program (NSEP) and the Fund for the Improvement of
Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE) of the U.S. Department of Education.
For more information and resources, visit https://langmedia.fivecolleges
.edu/ or e-mail: [email protected].

References
Adair-Hauck, B. (1993). A descriptive analysis of whole language/guided participa-
tory versus explicit teaching strategies in foreign language instruction [Unpublished
doctoral dissertation]. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., Poulin, R., & Straut, T. T. (2016). Online report card:
Tracking online education in the United States (Babson Survey Research Group
Report), pp. 1–57. Retrieved from https://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/
onlinereportcard.pdf
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). (2012).
ACTFL proficiency Guidelines. Retrieved from https://www.actfl.org/
resources/actfl-proficiency-guidelines-2012
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). (2014).
ACTFL board approved position statements: Global competence position state-
ment. Retrieved from https://www.actfl.org/list/position-statement/global-
competence-position-statement
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). (2015).
Performance descriptors for language learners (2nd ed.). Retrieved from https://cms
.azed.gov/home/GetDocumentFile?id=5748a47daadebe04c0b66e64
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). (2017). Use
of the target language in language learning. Retrieved from https://www.actfl.org/
resources/guiding-principles-language-learning/use-target-language-
language-learning
 Teaching Language Online Is Special  179

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, & Council for the
Accreditation of Educator Preparation (ACTFL & CAEP). (2013). Program
standards for the preparation of foreign language teachers. Retrieved from https://
www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/caep/ACTFLCAEPStandards2013_
v2015.pdf
Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2009).The work of teaching and the challenge for
teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497–511.
Bärenfänger, O., & Tschirner, E. (2008). Language educational policy and
language learning quality management:The common European framework
of reference. Foreign Language Annals, 41(1), 81–101.
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence.
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative
language pedagogy. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and
Communication (pp. 2–27). London, England: Longman.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches
to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47.
Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching.
TESOL Quarterly, 33(2), 185–209.
Council of Europe. (2011). Common European framework of reference for languages:
Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Cowie, N., & Sakui, K. (2015). Assessment and e-learning: Current issues and
future trends. JALT CALL Journal, 11(3), 271–281.
Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingual education and special education: Issues in assessment
and pedagogy. San Diego, CA: College Hill.
Cummins, J. (1991). Language development and academic learning. In
J. Cummins, L. Malave, & G. Duquette. Language, culture and cognition
(pp. 161–175). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Donato, R., & Adair-Hauck, B. (1992). Discourse perspectives on formal
instruction. Language Awareness, 1(2), 73–89.
Donato, R., & Adair-Hauck, B. (1994, November). PACE: A model to focus on
form. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Council on
the Teaching of Foreign Languages, San Antonio, TX.
Donato, R., & Adair-Hauck, B. (2016). PACE: A story-based approach for
dialogic inquiry about form and meaning. In J. Shrum & E. W. Glisan
(Authors), Teacher’s handbook: Contextualized foreign language instruction 5th ed.,
(pp. 206–230). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
180  Teaching Language Online Is Special

Egbert, J., Herman, D., & Chang, A. (2014). To flip or not to flip? That’s not the
question: Exploring flipped instruction in technology supported language
learning environments. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language
Learning and Teaching, 4(2), 1–10.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Galloway, V. (1998). Constructing cultural realities: “Facts” and frameworks of
association. In J. Harper, M. Lively, & M.Williams (Eds.), The coming of age of
the profession (pp. 129–140). Boston, MA: Heinle.
Glisan E. W., & Donato, R. (2017). Enacting the work of language instruction:
High leverage teaching practices. Alexandria,VA: The American Council on the
Teaching of Foreign Languages.
Glisan, E.W., Swender, E., & Surface, E. (2013). Oral proficiency standards and
foreign language teacher candidates: Current findings and future research
directions. Foreign Language Annals, 46(2), 264–289.
Higher Education Academy. (2015). Flipped learning. Retrieved January 30, 2020,
from https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/flipped-learning-0
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes
(Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth,
England: Penguin.
Ishihara, N. (2010). Adapting textbooks for teaching pragmatics. In N. Ishihara
& A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Teaching and learning pragmatics:Where language and culture
meet (pp. 145–165). New York, NY: Routledge.
Johnshoy, M. (2006). Competencies for effective online language teaching. Retrieved
from Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition website:
http://carla.umn.edu/technology/tlo/
Johnson, K. (2018). An introduction to foreign language learning and teaching
(3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
King, A. (1993). From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College Teaching,
41(1), 30–35.
Krashen, S. (1980).The input hypothesis. In J. Alatis (Ed.), Current issues in bilingual
education (pp. 175–183).Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York, NY:
Longman.
Lee, J. F., & VanPatten, B. (2003). Making communicative language teaching happen
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition, In H.
Winitz (Ed.), Native language and foreign language acquisition (pp. 259–278).
New York, NY: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.
 Teaching Language Online Is Special  181

Long, M. H. (1983a). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and

the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126–141.
doi:10.1093/applin/4.2.126
Long, M. H. (1983b). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native
speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5(2), 177–193. doi:10.1017/
S0272263100004848
Long, M. H. (1996).The role of the linguistic environment in second language
acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bahtia (Eds.), Handbook of second language
acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Mosher, A., Slagter, P., & Surface, E. (2010, November). CEFR and ACTFL
guidelines: Correlating the rubrics and descriptors. Paper presented at the American
Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages Annual Convention and World
Languages Expo, Boston, MA. http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/272209/
10229922/1295031592423/Mosher+Slagter++Surface+2010.pdf?token=4zstp
9JhF754S8FC1ZnrZ3Yz6S4%3D
National Council of State Supervisors for Languages, & American Council on
the Teaching of Foreign Languages (NCSSFL-ACTFL). (2017a). NCSSFL-
ACTFL can-do statements. Retrieved from https://www.actfl.org/resources/
ncssfl-actfl-can-do-statements
National Council of State Supervisors for Languages, & American Council on the
Teaching of Foreign Languages (NCSSFL-ACTFL). (2017b). NCSSFL-ACTFL
intercultural communication novice-distinguished can-do statements. Retrieved from
https://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/can-dos/Intercultural%20Can-Do_
Statements.pdf
National Council of State Supervisors for Languages, & American Council on
the Teaching of Foreign Languages (NCSSFL-ACTFL). (2017c). NCSSFL-
ACTFL intercultural reflection tool. Retrieved from https://www.actfl.org/
sites/default/files/can-dos/Intercultural%20Can-Dos_Reflections%20
Scenarios.pdf
National Standards Collaborative Board. (2015). World-readiness standards for
learning languages (4th ed.). Alexandria,VA: Author.
Paulston, C. B. (1972). Structural pattern drills. In H. B. Allen & R. N. Cambell
(Eds.), Teaching English as a second language (pp. 129–138). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Pinto, D. (2002). Perdóname, ¿Llevas mucho esperando? Conventionalized language
in L1 and L2 Spanish [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of
California, Davis.
Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
182  Teaching Language Online Is Special

Russell,V. (2014). A closer look at the output hypothesis: The effect of pushed
output on noticing and inductive learning of the Spanish future tense.
Foreign Language Annals, 47(1), 25–47. doi:10.1111/flan.12077
Seaman, J. E., Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade increase:Tracking distance edu-
cation in the United States (Babson Survey Research Group Report), pp. 1–57.
Retrieved from http://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/gradeincrease.pdf
Sharwood Smith, M. (1991). Speaking to many minds: On the relevance of
different types of language information for the L2 learner. Second Language
Research, 7(2), 118–132. doi:10.1177/026765839100700204
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehen-
sible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C.
Madden (Eds.), Input and second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley,
MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t
enough. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50(1), 158–164. doi:10.3138/
cmlr.50.1.158
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning.
In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguis-
tics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty
& J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition
(pp. 85–113). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
VanPatten, B. (1993). Grammar teaching for the acquisition rich classroom. Foreign
Language Annals, 26(4), 435–450. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.1993.tb01179.x
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction:Theory and research.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
VanPatten, B. (2002). Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning,
52(4), 755–803. doi:10.1111/1467-9922.00203
VanPatten, B. (2004). Input processing in SLA. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing
instruction:Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 5–31). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wong, W., & VanPatten, B. (2003). The evidence is IN: Drills are OUT. Foreign
Language Annals, 36(3), 403–423. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2003.tb02123.x
World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA). (2012). Amplification of
the English language development standards kindergarten–grade 12. Retrieved from
https://wida.wisc.edu/sites/default/files/resource/2012-ELD-Standards.pdf
World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA). (2016). K–12 can
do descriptors, key uses edition. Retrieved from https://wida.wisc.edu/teach/
can-do/descriptors
 Teaching Language Online Is Special  183

World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA). (2018a). Performance

definitions: Listening and reading grades K–12. Retrieved from https://
wida.wisc.edu/sites/default/files/resource/Performance-Definitions-
Receptive-Domains.pdf
World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA). (2018b). Performance
definitions: Speaking and writing grades K–12. Retrieved from https://
wida.wisc.edu/sites/default/files/resource/Performance-Definitions-
Expressive-Domains.pdf
Chapter 4

Online Professional
Development: What
Resources Are
Available and Who
Can Help?
Introduction
One of the most challenging aspects of teaching online can be the loneli-
ness associated with it. It takes hundreds of hours to design and develop a
new online language course and those hours are often spent working alone.
However, once an online course has been created, it may be recycled in future
semesters; moreover, updating and improving future iterations of a course
are usually not as time consuming as initially creating it. Unfortunately, each
time that a course textbook is changed, learning resources are updated, or
a learning management system changes or evolves, online instructors often
have to redevelop certain aspects of the course, spending many more hours
working alone.
Furthermore, many online language courses adhere to the asynchronous
delivery model, meaning that there are few or no required synchronous class

184
 Online Professional Development Resources  185

meetings.While students have the benefit of learning anytime/anywhere, real-

time communication between the instructor and the students is often limited
and the lack of synchronous interaction can lead to feelings of loneliness and
isolation on the part of both the students and the instructor.
While instructors can design a number of activities to increase learners’
social engagement in the course, such as pair or small-group work, conver-
sation exchanges, and peer connections through social media and/or virtual
worlds (see Chapter 2 to learn how to foster social presence in an online
course), online instructors must also attend to their own needs. One way to
combat their feelings of loneliness or isolation is to engage with other online
language educators through professional development activities that take place
either online or in person (e.g., at conferences, seminars, and/or workshops).
Joining a community of online language practitioners comes with many ben-
efits, such as sharing resources and materials, collaborating with others, and/or
participating in a mentoring relationship.
In this chapter, the authors will share how to connect with other online
language instructors, and they will also explain where to find open-access
resources for online professional development. The chapter begins with an
overview of the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages
(ACTFL) Distance Learning (DL) Special Interest Group (SIG)/National
Foreign Language Resource Center (NFLRC) Mentoring Program for
Online Language Teachers as well as how to become involved in the program.
Following this, the authors share information on several language resource
centers (LRCs) that provide open-access professional development materials
for language teachers.
Information on STARTALK programs and Basic Online Language Design
and Delivery (BOLDD) workshops for teaching languages online are also
included in this chapter—the former focuses on critical languages while the
latter is appropriate for instructing any second or foreign language online.
Professional organizations that support online language teaching and learning
are also highlighted in this chapter. Finally, the chapter concludes with an over-
view of non-discipline-specific resources for learning general online pedagogy.

Online Mentoring Program

for Language Teachers
The ACTFL DL SIG/NFLRC Mentoring Program for Online Language
Teachers was designed to help language teachers who are new or less expe-
rienced in the online teaching environment gain the knowledge, skills, and
186  Online Professional Development Resources

dispositions that they need to become effective online language practitioners.

With this program, mentees are paired with a mentor who has three or more
years of experience teaching language online. However, it is necessary to be a
member of ACTFL to participate in the program as either a mentee or a men-
tor. All ACTFL members receive at least one free ACTFL SIG membership.
Therefore, after joining ACTFL, there is no additional cost to join the DL SIG.
Regarding the mentoring program, online language mentees may opt to
participate for one semester or for a full academic year, depending upon their
own professional development needs. For the half-year program, the mentee
will complete nine online lessons and have five interactions with the mentor,
two of which must be synchronous (e.g., a phone call or online meeting).
Mentors and mentees are encouraged to engage in course sharing, which
enables the mentees to see in practice the principles of sound instructional
design, development, and delivery that they learn about in the online lessons.
The full-year program is similar, but the mentee will complete 18 online les-
sons and have eight interactions with the mentor. At the final synchronous
meeting (for either the half or full-year program), the mentor will complete
a checklist on behalf of the mentee, and they will each receive an online
badge from ACTFL.
The open-access online lessons used for the mentoring program were
designed as part of the NFLRC project Online Language Pedagogy (OLP),
the purpose of which is to produce much needed open resources for pro-
fessional learning on online language pedagogy. The NFLRC’s OLP project
responds to a real need, which is the lack of attention to online learning in
second and foreign language teacher preparation programs at many universities
in the United States and abroad. This problem was highlighted in Chapter 3,
which focuses on online language pedagogy (see Chapter 3 for guidelines and
examples of teaching language communicatively online). All of the online les-
sons are hosted on the NFLRC website; and at present, there are five modules:
(1) Introduction to Online Language Teaching, (2) Designing Interaction for
Online Language Learning, (3) Materials Development for Online Language
Courses, (4) Assessment in Online Language Courses, and (5) Selecting and
Adapting Materials for Online Language Learning and Teaching.
The first module (Introduction to Online Language Teaching) contains the
core lessons for the mentoring program and they are recommended for men-
tees who have little to no experience teaching language online. These lessons
were informed by materials that were created by the BOLDD Collaboratory
and have been used successfully in BOLDD workshops for more than ten
years. The lessons for the remaining topics were conceptualized and designed
 Online Professional Development Resources  187

by the NFLRC and are part of the OLP project. The purpose of the ongoing
OLP project is to provide pedagogical resources for language instructors who
are already teaching online. The NFLRC surveyed online language instructors
nationwide to prioritize the pedagogical aspects of online teaching that the
survey respondents deemed to be the most deserving of attention. Once a topic
was selected, the NFLRC conducted a review of the professional literature to
identify subtopics and invited individuals that had experience or expertise in
those areas to give webinars on the selected topics. The experts also created
online professional learning lessons based on the instructional design guide-
lines created by the NFLRC. The first pilot of this professional learning series
was implemented through a collaboration with the North Carolina Virtual
Public School (NCVPS) and an NCVPS instructor, who was contracted by the
NFLRC, served as a moderator for the series.The resulting materials (webinars
with supplemental professional learning lessons) are available as open access
resources on the NFLRC website. Moreover, the NFLRC provided logistical,
pedagogical, and technical support for the creation of all of the online lessons
that are used for the mentoring program. It is important to note that the men-
toring resources are openly available for all language educators to use, regardless
of whether they participate in the mentoring program.
ACTFL typically opens the applications for mentees each spring and for
mentors each summer (all ACTFL members can participate free of charge).
The program begins in September at the start of the new academic year.
Those who complete the half-year program will finish in December and those
who complete the full-year program will finish in May. Language educators
who are interested in participating in the program should consult the ACTFL
website for more details as well as specific enrollment dates.

National Foreign Language Resource

Center (NFLRC) Resources
The NFLRC, located at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, is a federally
funded (Title VI) LRC whose purpose is to increase the capacity to teach
and learn foreign languages effectively within the United States (NFLRC,
2020a). It achieves its mission by developing and disseminating research-based
materials and resources. It should be noted that the NFLRC faculty and staff
have a high level of expertise in language education, teacher development, and
technology integration, which enables them to create appropriate and highly
relevant research-based materials and programs for language educators. While
the NFLRC is physically located in Hawai‘i, many of its products are openly
188  Online Professional Development Resources

available on its website. NFLRC activities and resources address a wide range
of interests (teaching and professional learning materials, research journals, pro-
fessional conferences, etc.) and when they are language specific, they focus on
the less commonly taught languages such as Chinese, Filipino, Hindi, Korean,
Indonesian, Japanese, Persian, Portuguese, Vietnamese, etc. The NFLRC also
offers numerous online materials that address a diversity of world language
education topics, such as assessment, curriculum development, literacy, heri-
tage language education, online language pedagogy, online professional devel-
opment, pragmatics, task-based teaching, and technology integration to name
a few. Moreover, many of the resources that are available on the NFLRC
website fall under a creative commons license.
There are approximately 60 different projects available for language edu-
cators to explore on the NFLRC Projects page. Although several current
NFLRC projects focus on blended, online, and project-based learning, many
past projects have focused on aspects of distance and online learning—starting
as early as 1992—and have resulted in resources that are still relevant today. All
of these projects, past and present, are openly available for language educators
and other stakeholders to explore. Table 4.1 displays a list of NFLRC’s online
and blended learning projects.

Table 4.1  NFLRC Projects for online and blended learning

National Foreign Language Resource Center

Projects for Online and Blended Learning

Title of Project Years Active

Blended Learning 2014 – Present
Online Language Pedagogy 2014 – Present
Project-Based Language Learning 2014 – Present
Online Professional Development 2014 – Present
Online Learning Communities for Less Commonly Taught Languages 2010 – 2014
Online Cafes for Heritage Learners of Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, 2006 – 2010
and Samoan
Online Certificate Courses in Chinese, Japanese, and Korean 2006 – 2010
Distance Education, Distributed Learning, and Introductory Language 2002 – 2006
Instruction
Distance Education 1996 – 1999
Teacher Training via Interactive Television and Internet 1993 – 1996
Disseminating Technology-Based Models for Distance Education in 1992 – 2002
Critical Languages
 Online Professional Development Resources  189

In addition to the projects listed above, online language educators may

also be interested in the journals that are hosted by the NFLRC: Language
Documentation and Conservation, Reading in a Foreign Language, and Second
Language Research and Practice. The highly acclaimed journal, Language Learning
& Technology, is published by the NFLRC with funding from these sources: (1)
the NFLRC, (2) the Center for Open Educational Resources and Language
Learning (COERLL) at the University of Texas at Austin, and (3) the Center
for Language & Technology (CLT) at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa.
The following section will focus on two recent NFLRC projects: OLP and
Project-Based Language Learning (PBLL).

Online Professional Development

NFLRC’s OLP project is part of a broader initiative on online professional
development. For the OLP project, the NFLRC collaborated with the
NCVPS to create online professional learning opportunities that focused
on online language pedagogy. NCVPS is one of the largest state-led virtual
schools in the United States, with 51,000 student enrollments across dis-
ciplines for the 2018–2019 academic year (NCVPS, 2020). They currently
offer secondary-level online language courses in Arabic, French, German,
Japanese, Latin, Mandarin Chinese, Russian, and Spanish. It is often diffi-
cult for individual middle and high schools to offer less commonly taught
languages due to low enrollments; however, NCVPS is able to fill the gap
by combining students from across the state and country to learn these
languages online. They also employ language teachers who hold state certi-
fication in North Carolina.
As part of the OLP project, the NFLRC created and delivered online pro-
fessional learning for the NCVPS foreign language teachers. Participants met
once per week synchronously for lectures and discussions on specific topics for
a period of 14 weeks. The synchronous meetings were facilitated and recorded
by NFLRC staff (an explanation of how the content was selected and devel-
oped by the NFLRC was described above). Scholars in online language peda-
gogy who were invited by the NFLRC gave the webinar lectures and created
TED Ed lessons based on their webinars. The webinar and lesson activities for
each topic consisted of 10 professional development hours. After the facilitated
instruction series ended, the NFLRC continued to offer the TED Ed lessons
as self-paced learning modules. The TED Ed lessons remain openly available
to all language educators who want to learn more about online language ped-
agogy. Participants in both the facilitated and self-paced modules are able to
190  Online Professional Development Resources

Figure 4.1  Screenshot of NFLRC’s Online Language Pedagogy landing page.

Used with permission.

earn an online badge from the NFLRC. A screenshot of some of NFLRC’s

resources for online language pedagogy is presented in Figure 4.1
The most recent module to be added—Selecting and Adapting Materials
for Online Language Learning and Teaching—is part of the NFLRC’s new
grant funding cycle that runs through 2022. Therefore, language educators
should be on the lookout for new modules, resources, and materials from the
NFLRC’s OLP project over the next few years.

Project-Based Language Learning (PBLL)

Project-based learning, in general, is a type of pedagogy that requires stu-
dents to actively engage in solving complex, real-world problems. It is a
student-centered approach where learners organize and manage their own
work while the teacher acts as a facilitator. The students typically collaborate
with their peers to create artifacts that represent their learning (Crane, 2009).
According to Markham (2011), students who participate in project-based
learning engage in two types of learning: (1) developing knowledge and skills
associated with the curriculum, and (2) applying new knowledge to solve
an authentic problem. Markham also asserted that online tools and resources
 Online Professional Development Resources  191

help students create high-quality artifacts to showcase their learning; therefore,

project-based learning could be applied to online, blended, or flipped language
courses where students have access to digital media and content. Furthermore,
students can showcase their projects with ePortfolios, which were discussed
extensively in Chapter 2.
Within the context of language learning, the NFLRC defines PBLL as
“a transformative learning experience designed to engage language learn-
ers with real-world issues and meaningful target language use through the
construction of products that have an authentic purpose and that are shared
with an audience that extends beyond the instructional setting. PBLL can be
conceived as a series of language learning tasks that are articulated toward a
common goal: the construction of a public product” (NFLRC, 2020b). This
definition is relevant for language educators who wish to incorporate PBLL
into the world language curriculum.
In 2014, the NFLRC launched an initiative to create professional learning
resources for world language instructors interested in developing and imple-
menting quality projects. As part of this initiative, the NFLRC has created
online institutes, short courses, and MOOCs to help language educators
understand how existing principles of quality project-based learning could
be applied to language teaching and learning. Language instructors who
have taken advantage of NFRLC PBLL opportunities have created and
shared project design and implementation information through an online
repository called Pebbles.
The following modules on PBLL are openly available on the NFLRC
website: (1) PBLL in Action (2015), (2) PBLL and Interculturality (2016),
(3) Pathways to PBLL (2017), and (4) Pragmatics in PBLL (2018). In add-
ition to the online modules, the NFLRC has offered PBLL symposia and,
more recently, short courses on the connections between PBLL and relevant
pedagogical practices, such as the 2019 short course on intersections between
PBLL and high-leverage teaching practices. Figure 4.2 presents the landing
page for NFLRC’s PBLL materials and resources.
The NFLRC has also developed an entire lower division online curric-
ulum for learning Vietnamese (Vietnamese 101–202) at the college level
through PBLL. This is a valuable resource, not only for those who teach less
commonly taught languages online, but for all language schools and depart-
ments who wish to incorporate PBLL into their curriculum. More informa-
tion on PBLL is available on the NFLRC website. Readers are encouraged
to explore the NFLRC website to locate the content that is most relevant for
their instructional needs.
192  Online Professional Development Resources

Figure 4.2  Screenshot of NFLRC’s Project-Based Language Learning landing page.

Used with permission.

Center for Advanced Research on Language

Acquisition (CARLA) Resources
CARLA is a research and resource center that is housed at the University of
Minnesota, which provides funding and infrastructure support. Many of its
resources and materials were created with federal grants, as CARLA was an LRC
from its inception in 1993 through 2018. CARLA’s current mission is “to study
multilingualism and multiculturalism, to develop knowledge of second language
acquisition, and to advance the quality of second language teaching, learning,
and assessment in the U.S.” (CARLA, 2020). This is achieved by engaging in
research projects (including action research), disseminating research findings, and
applying the knowledge gleaned from research across the United States in edu-
cational and other settings. Table 4.2 shows CARLA’s research and programs.
While CARLA offers a wide range of materials and resources, the focus
of this chapter is on online language professional development. Therefore, the
following topics from the CARLA website will be explored here: Content-
Based Language Teaching with Technology (CoBaLTT), Technology and
Second Language Learning, and Language Teacher Education. CARLA’s
summer institutes and other professional development opportunities for online
language teachers will also be described in this chapter.
 Online Professional Development Resources  193

Table 4.2  Description of CARLA’s research and programs

CARLA Research or Program Description

Articulation of Language Projects that focus on the articulation of proficiency-
Instruction based language instruction and assessment.
Assessment of Second Language Resources that promote and assess the development
of second language proficiency.
Content-Based Language Teaching Online resources to help teachers create content-
with Technology (CoBaLTT) based lessons/units using technology.
Culture and Language Learning Interdisciplinary initiatives that explore the
connections between language and culture.
Cultures and Languages across Projects that promote transformational learning
the Curriculum (CLAC) through the integration of content, language, and
culture.
Foreign Languages and Literacies Tools and resources that foster the application of
literacies pedagogy and the use of authentic texts.
Immersion Education Research and professional development to support
immersion education.
Language Program Direction Resources and support for language program
directors.
Language Teacher Education Research and professional development for language
teacher educators.
Learner Language Research and professional development for analyzing
learner language.
Lesson Commonly Taught Resources to support the instruction of less
Languages (LCTL) commonly taught languages.
Maximizing Study Abroad A series of guidebooks for students, instructors, and
program directors to maximize learners’ linguistic
and cultural experiences abroad.
Pragmatics/Speech Acts Research and information on how to teach
pragmatics and speech acts to language learners.
Strategies for Language Learning Research and resources for strategy-based language
instruction.
Technology and Second Language Professional development and resources for
Learning technology integration and online teaching.
*Note. The research and programs highlighted above are from the Center for Advanced Research on Language
Acquisition (CARLA), University of Minnesota. See: https://carla.umn.edu.

Content-Based Language Teaching with Technology (CoBaLTT)

According to Crandall and Tucker (1990), content-based instruction (CBI) is
“an approach to language instruction that integrates the presentation of top-
ics or tasks from subject-matter classes (e.g. math, social studies) within the
context of teaching a second or foreign language” (p. 187). Because language
194  Online Professional Development Resources

courses incorporate many cross-disciplinary fields such as literature, history,

social studies, and geography, instruction on topics from these disciplines could
be delivered through the vehicle of the target language. In addition, adding
cross-disciplinary material that is related to the target language and culture will
enrich an online language course.
Research from other disciplines has shown that CBI is highly effective
(Genesee, 1994; Grabe & Stoller, 1997); therefore, online language instruc-
tors should consider incorporating it into their curriculum. CoBaLTT
includes both CBI and technology integration. CARLA provides a wealth
of resources for incorporating CoBaLTT, including lesson and unit plans by
language and level. CoBaLTT resources also include development materi-
als, instructional strategies, assessment, and technology tools for using this
instructional technique.

Technology and Second Language Learning

With respect to technology and second language learning, CARLA offers sev-
eral technology integration modules. They also provide research and informa-
tion regarding the knowledge, skills, and other competencies required to teach
language online effectively. Language educators are able to use this informa-
tion as a form of self-assessment to determine if they are ready to teach in the
online environment. CARLA’s Technology and Second Language Learning
area also offers a wiki with links to numerous online tools and resources.
The wiki not only contains links for accessing these tools, but it also provides
descriptions of the tools as well as online tutorials regarding how to use them
effectively. This type of support information is extremely valuable for those
who are new to online language teaching.
Moreover, CARLA’s technology integration modules provide instruction
on topics such as digital storytelling, telecollaboration, and webquests. Digital
storytelling, which can be used to elicit presentational speaking in online
classes, was described in detail in Chapter 3. The CARLA website provides
practical information on how to use several tools for creating digital stories.
They also provide examples, readings, and activities related to digital stories.
CARLA’s technology integration modules include the topic of telecol-
laboration (also known as teletandem or virtual exchanges), which refers to
linguistic and cultural exchanges that can take place through any medium that
allows students to see and hear each other in real time. The main feature of
telecollaboration is students’ ability to interact with their peers from the target
 Online Professional Development Resources  195

language culture. Students typically spend half of the time interacting in

the target language and half of the time speaking in English to help their con-
versation partners build their English language proficiency. Telecollaboration
is a powerful way to incorporate ACTFL’s Connections and Communities
standards into online language courses (National Standards Collaborative
Board, 2015). “Connections” refer to helping learners access and evaluate
diverse perspectives by examining topics through the lens of other languages
and cultures and “Communities” refer to helping learners use the language
in the local community and beyond by collaborating and connecting with
native speakers of the language throughout the world (National Standards
Collaborative Board, 2015). Furthermore, incorporating telecollaboration into
online language courses may help students feel more connected and less iso-
lated in their online language learning experience. CARLA provides readings,
examples, activities, and resources on telecollaboration.
CARLA also disseminates materials and resources for integrating webquests
into the foreign and second language curriculum. Webquests are Internet-
based group activities that are designed to stimulate higher order thinking
among students.They were first proposed by Bernie Dodge in the mid-1990s;
and since then, webquests have evolved to contain six essential parts (Concept
to Classroom, 2004; Dodge, 1995a, Dodge, 1995b). Table 4.3 depicts the six
essential parts of a webquest.

Table 4.3  The six essential parts of a webquest activity

Essential Parts
of a Webquest Description
Introduction Background information on the task.
Task What the students will do and produce.
Process The steps that students will take to complete the task.
Resources Preselected links so that students focus on learning information
rather than locating it.
Evaluation An explanation of how students’ work will be graded, which
may include peer evaluations.
Conclusion Student reflection, discussion, and/or extension of the topic.

Dodge (1995b) suggested providing examples and an evaluation rubric

to students before they get started on the task. In addition, many instructors
assign students specific roles and they may also require students to eval-
uate each other’s contribution to the project. In online classes, webquests
196  Online Professional Development Resources

can be used to help students learn about cultural products, practices, and
perspectives.

Language Teacher Education

CARLA offers a number of workshops, workshop series, and summer insti-
tutes each year. While most of the instruction that they provide is offered
onsite—on the University of Minnesota’s campus—they also offer several
online institutes each summer for those who are unable to travel. CARLA
accepts instructors of every language and level, including teachers of English
as a second or foreign language. They also accept administrators, curriculum
specialists, and methods instructors from the United States and abroad into
their workshops and institutes. CARLA’s summer institutes are offered in June
and July to accommodate teachers’ academic schedules. Thus far, over 6,000
educators have participated in CARLA’s summer institutes, which have reg-
istration fees that range between $250 and $500. For those who do not need
academic credit, the registration fee and books are their only expenses. For
those seeking academic credit, there are addition credit hour charges from the
University of Minnesota. CARLA also provides affordable lodging options on
or near campus for institute participants.
Many of CARLA’s online summer institutes are designed primarily for
online language teachers. For the summer of 2019, they offered the following
online institutes: Transitioning to Teaching Language Online, Using the Web
for Communicative Language Learning, and Teaching Linguistic Politeness
and Intercultural Awareness. While the topics will vary from summer to
summer, CARLA will continue to offer online institutes that are appropriate
for both beginners and for those with some experience in online language
design, development, and delivery.
One of CARLA’s premier initiatives is the Transitioning to Teaching
Language Online (TTLO) course, which is typically offered as a four-week
course that is delivered fully online. Participants gain valuable experience as
online students while they learn about online course design, best practices
for online teaching, and technology integration among other relevant topics.
Figure 4.3 shows the landing page for CARLA’s TTLO course.
By the end of the course, each participant will have developed a portfolio
of online activities that are ready to be implemented into their online courses.
The cost of the course is $500 plus books for those who register early and all
participants will receive a certificate of completion from CARLA. Registration
is available on a first-come, first-served basis on the CARLA website.
 Online Professional Development Resources  197

Figure 4.3  CARLA’s Transitioning to Teaching Language Online program, Center for Advanced
Research on Language Acquisition, University of Minnesota.
Used with permission.

The Center for Open Educational Resources

and Language Learning (COERLL) Resources
COERLL, pronounced like coral, is an LRC that focuses on the following
areas: “applied linguistic research, teaching materials, language assessment,
teacher development, less commonly taught languages, K-12 initiatives, and
outreach and dissemination” (COERLL, 2020). COERLL has funding from
the Department of Education (Title VI) and is located at the University of
Texas at Austin. Its primary mission is to create and distribute open educational
Internet-based resources for the public. Individual users are free to download
198  Online Professional Development Resources

Figure 4.4  Screenshot of COERLL’s main page.

The Center for Open Educational Resources and Language Learning, The University of Texas at Austin. https://
www.coerll.utexas.edu/coerll/. Used with permission.

and use COERLL’s open access resources; however, permissions must be

granted by COERLL for altering and/or redistributing them. Furthermore,
the heart of COERLL’s mission is to situate foreign language education
within the fields of bilingualism and multilingualism, with a focus on language
development along proficiency and dialectal continua (COERLL, 2020). A
screenshot of COERLL’s main page is presented in Figure 4.4. Given that
this chapter is dedicated to online professional development, three areas from
the COERLL website will be explored here: Language Learning Materials,
Teaching Methods, and Open Education.

Language Learning Materials

One of the most time-consuming aspects of teaching language online is devel-
oping high-quality materials that are effective for online delivery. One way
to help ease this burden is to use and/or modify open educational resources
(OER) that are available online. COERLL offers a wide array of high-quality
resources for the following languages: Arabic, Bangla, Chinese, Czech, English,
French, German, Hebrew, Hindi, Italian, Japanese, K’iche’, Malayalam, Persian,
Portuguese, Russian, Sanskrit, Spanish, Tamil, Turkish, Urdu, and Yoruba. The
number of critical and less commonly taught languages that they address with
 Online Professional Development Resources  199

their online materials is impressive. COERLL language learning materials

include video-based resources, online textbooks (for French), open-access
courses, podcasts, websites, online activities, dictionaries, flash cards, and more.
Furthermore, online instructors may opt to use OER in place of language
textbooks that are available from publishers to reduce costs for their students.
Moreover, language textbooks are typically only available for commonly taught
languages such as French, German, Latin, and Spanish in the United States,
with very few publisher-created materials available for less commonly taught
languages. Online teachers of less commonly taught languages are encouraged
to explore open-access resources, such as COERLL’s offerings, to determine
which of their language learning materials are appropriate for their instruc-
tional contexts and learners.

Teaching Methods
The Teaching Methods area of their website contains materials and resources
that are relevant to foreign language educators. Table 4.4 presents that top-
ics that are available on COERLL’s website for professional development in
language pedagogy.
The foreign language teaching methods self-paced course contains 12
interactive modules that are primarily geared for secondary and postsecondary
world language educators. This content may be of interest to anyone who
wants to refresh their knowledge of foreign language pedagogy. While this
resource was not designed specifically for online language educators, much of
the information that it contains is still relevant for them.
The Tadriis website is a valuable resource for those who teach Arabic,
either in a traditional classroom or in blended or online environments. It

Table 4.4  Overview of COERLL’s resources for language pedagogy

COERLL OER Material Description

Foreign Language Teaching Methods A video-based foreign language teaching
methods self-paced course
Tadriis An Arabic teaching methods website
Introduction to Oral Proficiency Levels Practice modules for assessing Spanish
(Spanish) language learners’ oral proficiency levels
Spanish Proficiency Training Website and Activities and videos for assessing Spanish
Learner Corpus language learners’ oral proficiency levels
*Note. The research and programs highlighted above are from the Center for Open Educational Resources and
Language Learning,The University of Texas at Austin. https://www.coerll.utexas.edu/coerll/
200  Online Professional Development Resources

contains samples of student-teacher interactions, samples of student produc-

tion, teaching tips, pedagogical demonstrations, a glossary of key terms, and
suggestions for further reading. All of the material are presented in Arabic
and all of the content is OER.
COERLL’s Introduction to Oral Proficiency Levels contains OER mate-
rials and resources for all levels of Spanish language learners. This resource
contains 17 video-based practice modules that facilitate Spanish language
educators’ understanding of ACTFL’s Proficiency Guidelines (ACTFL,
2012) and how to assess students’ oral proficiency using them. The prac-
tice materials are also available on Google drive, which enables educators to
edit and share them with others. Furthermore, COERLL provides guidance
and instructions for conducting oral interviews to assess students’ oral pro-
ficiency in Spanish.
The Spanish Proficiency Training Website and Learner Corpus provides
videos of Spanish language learners—from Novice through Advanced profi-
ciency—answering questions in the target language. This content also includes
a written transcript of the video recordings as well as activities that guide
Spanish language educators to notice specific features of learner language and
what learner language looks like at different levels of proficiency. Answers to
the activities are also included.
While the majority of COERLL’s language pedagogy materials were
designed for instructors of Spanish or Arabic, the video-based teaching meth-
ods course is appropriate for instructors of all foreign and second languages.
The resources in the Teaching Methods area may also be particularly useful for
methods instructors and the learner corpus may be of interest to researchers
who investigate learner language.

Open Education
The Open Education area of COERLL’s website would be helpful for all
online language educators who wish to use and/or modify OER resources.
COERLL offers two websites as well as self-paced learning modules on
how to use OER effectively. One of the two websites provides information
on how to use and create online badges within the world language curric-
ulum. The other website presents voices from the classroom, which show
how students, teachers, and developers use and/or create OER for language
teaching and learning.
Perhaps COERLL’s most powerful resource is the online, self-paced
course for learning about OER. The course contains six modules as
 Online Professional Development Resources  201

follows: (1) introduction to OER, (2) searching for OER, (3) licensing and
attribution, (4) remixing and revising OER, (5) creating OER, and (6) pub-
lishing and sharing OER. It is not uncommon for educators to be confused
about what content from the Internet they are allowed to use, modify, and/
or distribute to their students without infringing on copyright laws; therefore,
COERLL’s online OER course is a valuable resource on this topic.
COERLL also offers presentations and workshops throughout the aca-
demic year at the University of Texas at Austin campus. While their presen-
tations are free of charge, their workshops have a nominal fee. In addition
to these professional development opportunities, COERLL also publishes
an online newsletter twice per year that contains issues that are relevant to
language educators.

STARTALK Summer Programs

These are federally funded summer programs for K-12 students and teachers,
as well as university professors of eight critical languages including: Arabic,
Chinese, Hindi, Korean, Persian, Russian,Turkish, and Urdu (STARTALK, 2020).
The funding source is the National Security Agency and the purpose of the
STARTALK grant program is to increase the number of students and effective
teachers of critical languages in the United States and to increase the number
of materials and curricula available for the instruction of critical languages. In
addition, programs that are geared for teachers of critical languages may pro-
vide pathways to state certification.
Funding is provided to STARTALK programs on a yearly basis and those
who wish to administer a program must apply each year during their annual
grant cycle. All types of institutions may offer STARTALK programs, including
school districts, universities, community colleges, nonprofit organizations, and
libraries (STARTALK, 2020). The STARTALK website also has information
on how to apply for a STARTALK grant.
The majority of STARTALK summer programs take place on location at
institutions across the United States, but some of the programs are offered
online. For the nonresidential programs, participants travel to the location
each day to receive instruction. For the residential programs, participants live
onsite for the duration of the program. STARTALK programs vary in length
from one to four weeks and they each allow a fixed number of participants,
depending upon the amount of funding that was received. The summer pro-
grams for both students and teachers of critical languages are either free or
have a nominal fee for participants.
202  Online Professional Development Resources

Online STARTALK Programs for Teachers

While the topics for online summer STARTALK programs will vary by year
with each new funding cycle; for the summer of 2019, two online programs
were available: (1) Planning for Authentic, Interactive Language Experiences
and (2) Online Korean Teacher Training. The former included 80 contact
hours and was designed for instructors of Arabic, Chinese, and Persian, and the
latter provided 45 contact hours and it targeted instructors of Korean exclu-
sively. The online program for teachers of Arabic, Chinese, and Persian focused
on technology-enhanced language learning and backward design, while the
online program for Korean teachers focused on how to design standards-based
language instruction as well as how to use educational technologies effec-
tively. Due to the global pandemic caused by COVID-19, all 2020 summer
STARTALK programs were deferred to 2021.
Furthermore, online summer STARTALK programs may provide a combi-
nation of synchronous and asynchronous instruction. From the main page, it
is possible to search all available STARTALK programs that are delivered both
online and onsite for the summer of 2021 and beyond.

Basic Online Language Design and

Delivery (BOLDD) Collaboratory
The BOLDD Collaboratory is a group of online practitioners and schol-
ars who are involved with the design, development, and delivery of online
language courses and programs. According to Wulf (1993), a collaboratory
is a space in which researchers can interact, perform research, and share
data without the barriers of a physical location. Therefore, members of the
BOLDD Collaboratory interact and collaborate online through digital
media to collect, review, and share best practices and resources for online
language teaching and learning. The collaboratory also performs important
research in the field by delivering a national survey to take the pulse of
online language teaching and learning in the United States. They also sum-
marize the data and disseminate the findings of the survey through publi-
cations in academic journals and presentations at professional conferences.
Murphy-Judy and Johnshoy (2017) published the most recent analysis of
the survey findings. The data that they reported is useful for online language
practitioners, program coordinators, administrators, teacher educators, and
policy makers. Murphy-Judy and Johnshoy’s article is listed as recommended
reading at the end of this chapter.
 Online Professional Development Resources  203

Furthermore, the work of the BOLDD Collaboratory informed the first

set of pedagogical materials and resources that are used for the ACTFL
DL SIG/NFLRC Mentoring Program for Online Language Teachers.
Members of the ACTFL DL SIG and faculty from the NFLRC created
online modules for those who are completely new or less experienced
in online teaching. These modules were described in detail earlier in the
chapter.

BOLDD Workshops
The BOLDD Collaboratory also regularly holds workshops at national,
regional, and state professional conferences across the United States. In recent
years, collaboratory members have been offering pre-conference workshops at
the annual Computer-Assisted Language Instruction Consortium (CALICO)
conference. These workshops are intended for those with little or no experi-
ence teaching language online and there is a nominal fee paid to CALICO.
Attendees are typically K-16 language teachers, teacher educators, government
employees, and/or other stakeholders who are responsible for creating, deliv-
ering, and/or administering online language courses and programs. BOLDD
workshops provide attendees with the knowledge, tools, and resources that
they need to create synchronous or asynchronous basic online language classes
and programs. The CALICO website includes information on how to enroll
in a BOLDD workshop.

Professional Development Organizations

for Online Language Teachers
In addition to the BOLDD Collaboratory, there are a number of professional
organizations that provide support for online language educators.While they
are listed with a brief description here, links to each organization are avail-
able in the book’s eResources and readers are encouraged to explore them
to determine which organizations are of the greatest interest and benefit to
themselves.

ACTFL Distance Learning (DL) Special Interest Group (SIG)

DL SIG members must be ACTFL members to participate in the DL SIG. Each
ACTFL membership includes free membership to one SIG. Therefore, ACTFL
members only need to select the DL SIG as their free SIG. If they are already
204  Online Professional Development Resources

members of another ACTFL SIG, they may join for $5 annually. The DL SIG
has five main goals as follows:

●● To provide a forum for world language teachers who are engaged in

distance learning to share experiences and concerns
●● To promote the exchange of information about distance learning in the
interest of developing best-practice principles
●● To bring issues related to distance learning in world languages to all
ACTFL members
●● To encourage and support the dissemination of research and best practices
●● To cooperate and to collaborate with other ACTFL special interest groups
(e.g., technology, teacher development, language learning for children) on
projects of mutual concern (ACTFL, 2020).

To meet the goals listed above, the ACTFL DL SIG co-created the ACTFL DL
SIG/NFLRC Mentoring Program for Online Language Teachers, which was
presented at the beginning of this chapter. They also host two or three webinars
each year on topics of interest to online language educators. All members may
attend the webinars live or they may view recordings of them at their convenience.
Furthermore, in order to connect members with each other, the ACTFL DL SIG
hosts an online community that is delivered through the main ACTFL website.
All members have access to the DL SIG online community where they can ask
and answer questions as well as post concerns, research data, and/or other informa-
tion.This online community allows members to stay abreast of new developments
in online teaching and learning in the United States. Members may also reach out
to their colleagues via the online community if they need help or support.
The DL SIG also holds an annual business meeting at the ACTFL con-
ference where members are encouraged to network and collaborate. The
ACTFL DL SIG partners with CALICO to present annual online teaching
awards in Higher Education and K-12 each year at the DL SIG business
meeting. All members of the ACTFL DL SIG are eligible to submit an appli-
cation for an online teaching award. Therefore, the DL SIG and CALICO
strive to recognize the achievements of those engaged in online teaching
and learning.

Computer-Assisted Language Instruction Consortium (CALICO)

This is an international professional organization with a focus on com-
puter-assisted language learning; therefore, its membership includes both
language educators and those involved with language learning technologies.
 Online Professional Development Resources  205

CALICO holds an annual conference either in the United States or in

Canada each year. CALICO members may also become involved with the
following SIGs:

●● Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) SIG

●● Gaming SIG
●● Graduate Student SIG
●● Intelligent Computer-Assisted Language Learning (ICALL) SIG
●● Language Teaching and Learning Technologies (LTLT) SIG
●● Second Language Acquisition and Technology (SLAT) SIG
●● Teacher Education SIG
●● Virtual Worlds SIG

CALICO’s mission includes disseminating research on the application of

technology to language teaching and learning. This is achieved in two ways,
first through the quarterly publication of the CALICO Journal, and second,
through CALICO’s edited book series. Access to the journal is available to
members through the CALICO website. The latest edition of each book in
the CALICO series is provided to attendees of the CALICO conference.
Books may also be purchased on CALICO’s website.
CALICO recognizes those who make an impact on the field by spon-
soring annual awards. In addition to partnering with the ACTFL DL SIG
to co-sponsor online teaching awards in K-12 and higher education each
year, CALICO also sponsors annual awards for an outstanding graduate
student in computer-assisted language learning, a language learning web-
site award, an outstanding CALICO Journal article award, and a lifetime
achievement award.

European Association of Computer-Assisted

Language Learning (EUROCALL)
This is a sister organization of CALICO that provides a European lens on
the use of technology for the teaching and learning of language and culture.
EUROCALL and CALICO offer discounted memberships for those who
wish to join both organizations. Similar to CALICO, EUROCALL offers
annual conferences in Europe, SIG memberships, as well as two scholarly jour-
nals to disseminate research findings in the field: ReCALL and EUROCALL
Review. The former is available to members on the EUROCALL website and
the latter is an open-access scholarly journal.
206  Online Professional Development Resources

International Association for Language

Learning Technology (IALLT)
IALLT is another sister organization of CALICO that has a large presence at
the annual CALICO conference. IALLT’s mission is to provide a community
for its members who are leaders in developing, integrating, evaluating, and
managing instructional technologies for the teaching and learning of world
languages, cultures, and literatures. IALLT began as an organization to support
language lab directors; but today, its members are also comprised of language
educators, librarians, software developers, and computer programmers among
others. In addition to their annual conference, IALLT also makes webinars and
publications available to its members. Their open-access publications include
The IALTT Journal and FLTMAG. IALLT creates a sense of community
through its eight regional groups that provide professional development and
networking opportunities. The regional groups also host conferences.

Non-Discipline-Specific Resources
EDUCAUSE
This is a nonprofit association dedicated to advancing higher education through
the use of instructional technologies; it is the largest organization with this mis-
sion in the United States. In addition to providing conferences and networking
opportunities, EDUCAUSE also makes a Core Data Service (CDS) application
available to its members. The CDS tool allows members to contribute data,
to analyze and use data to measure their own institution’s information tech-
nology spending and resources, and to compare their institution’s data with that
of other peer institutions. The CDS tool is a unique feature of this association.
EDUCAUSE also provides a research database that contains scholarly publi-
cations related to instructional technologies and higher education. Those who
work in higher education and who are stakeholders in the acquisition of instruc-
tional technologies may be particularly interested in joining this organization.
More information on EDUCAUSE is available in the eResources.

The Online Learning Consortium (OLC)

The OLC is a nonprofit organization that serves online instructors, instruc-
tional designers, administrators, and other stakeholders in higher education
across all disciplines. Their mission is to advance the quality of modern online
learning and teaching.The OLC provides online instructor-led and self-paced
 Online Professional Development Resources  207

professional development workshops, online teaching certificate programs,

summer institutes on site at the University of Central Florida, online webi-
nars, and resources for best practices in online teaching. The OLC also offers
two conferences annually, Accelerate and Innovate. The former focuses on
networking and research in the field of online teaching and learning, while
the latter emphasizes personalized conversations, collaborative learning, and
hands-on activities. Although this organization is geared toward higher educa-
tion, those who teach language online at the secondary level may also benefit
from the OLC’s online programs, conferences, and resources.

Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning

and Online Teaching (MERLOT)
MERLOT is on online collection of discipline-specific materials, exercises,
webpages, bookmark collections, and other resources that are openly available
on the Internet. MERLOT was created and is managed by the California State
University System in collaboration with other institutions/systems of higher
education, partners from industry and professional organizations, as well as
individual users. MERLOT has a number of discipline-specific communities,
including the World Language Community, where thousands of learning mate-
rials and resources are available both for commonly and less commonly taught
languages. In addition, over 600 resources are available in the World Language
Community for instructing English as a second or foreign language. Moreover,
learning materials and resources are available for every level of learner and
language teachers and students may download, copy, and use the open-access
materials that are posted on MERLOT’s World Language Community free of
charge. Furthermore, language instructors may share their own resources with
others on the MERLOT website. The philosophy behind the open-access move-
ment is that when individuals connect and share resources, then the whole com-
munity advances. All online language instructors should explore MERLOT’s
World Language Community for useful materials that may be incorporated into
their online courses. The authors also encourage language educators to share
their resources with others via MERLOT’s World Language Community.

Conclusion
This chapter provided an overview of professional development opportunities
and resources for online foreign and second language teachers. Three LRCs
were highlighted: NFLRC, CARLA, and COERLL. While it is beyond the
208  Online Professional Development Resources

scope of this chapter to describe all of the LRCs that exist across the United
States, those that were presented in this chapter provide materials and resources
that are specific for online language education. While the Center for Applied
Second Language Studies (CASLS) also provides many valuable resources for
online language educators, their materials and applications were discussed
thoroughly in Chapters 1 and 2. Links to the other federally funded LRCs
are available in the book’s eResources. It should be noted that many LRCs
are geared for certain language groups and regions (e.g., Asian Studies) and
they specialize in creating materials and resources for less commonly taught
languages.Therefore, teachers of Asian, East Asian, Eastern European, Eurasian,
and Slavic languages will find those LRCs of particular interest.
While many materials, resources, and professional development oppor-
tunities were presented in this chapter, online instructors will need to
determine which ones will be the most beneficial for their instructional
context, their specific learners, and their current skill level with respect to
delivering language instruction online. Online language educators should
also keep in mind that they do not have to design, develop, and deliver
their courses in isolation. Many professional organizations, programs,
workshops, and symposia—as described in this chapter—are available to
meet the needs of online language educators. Furthermore, the authors
would like to encourage everyone who teaches a language online to reach
out and plug into at least one of the communities of practice that were
presented in this chapter.

Key Takeaways
●● There are many LRCs that have a wide array of OER materials and
resources that could be implemented in flipped, blended, or online
language courses.
●● The ACTFL DL SIG/NFLRC has an online mentoring program for
those who are new or less experienced in online language teaching.
Participation in the program is free to all ACTFL members.
●● Non-discipline-specific organizations, such as MERLOT, OLC, and EDU-
CAUSE, have many resources that could be employed by language educators.

Discussion Questions
1. Which of the professional organizations is the most appropriate for the
language and level that you teach?
 Online Professional Development Resources  209

2. Would the ACTFL DL SIG/NFLRC Mentoring Program for Online

Language Teachers or the open-access mentoring resources be helpful for
you? Why (not)?
3. Would you consider using PBLL or CoBaLTT in your online language
courses? Why (not)?
4. Is there a specific tool or resource that you would like to explore further? How
could you incorporate this tool or resource into your online language class?
5. If you had the time and the resources, would you be interested in attend-
ing a summer STARTALK program or a CARLA summer institute? If so,
which one appears to be the most beneficial for your particular profes-
sional development needs?

Suggestions for Further Reading

Content-Based Language Instruction:
Cammarata, L. (Ed.). (2016). Content-based foreign language teaching. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Grabe,W., & Stoller, F. L. (1997). Content-based instruction: Research foun-
dations. In M. A. Snow & D. M. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom:
Perspectives on integrating language and content (pp. 5–21). New York, NY:
Longman.

Online Learning National Survey Results:

Murphy-Judy, K., & Johnshoy, M. (2017). Who’s teaching which languages
online? A report based on national surveys. IALLT Journal, 47(1), 137–167.
Seaman, J. E., Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade increase: Tracking
distance education in the United States (Babson Survey Research Group
Report). Retrieved from http://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/
gradeincrease.pdf

Project-Based Learning:
Beckett, G., & Slater, T. (Eds.). (2019). Global perspectives on project-based
language learning, teaching, and assessment: Key approaches, technology tools, and
frameworks. New York, NY: Routledge.
Markham,T. (2011). Project-based learning: A bridge just far enough. Teacher
Librarian, 39(2), 38–42.

Telecollaboration:
O’Dowd, R., & Lewis, T. (Eds). (2018). Online intercultural exchange: Policy,
pedagogy, practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
210  Online Professional Development Resources

Harris, J. (2000). Taboo topic no longer: Why telecollaborative proj-

ects sometimes fail. Learning and Leading with Technology, 27(5), 58–61.
Retrieved from https://scholarworks.wm.edu/educationpubs/21/

Note
1 The National Foreign Language Resource Center (NFLRC) at the
University of Hawai’i at Mānoa is partially funded by a grant from the
U. S. Department of Education (CFDA 84.229, P220A180026). However,
the contents produced by the NFLRC do not necessarily represent the
policy of the Department of Education, and one should not assume
endorsement by the Federal Government. Dr. Julio C. Rodríguez is the
Director of the NFLRC at the University of Hawai’i at Mānoa.

References
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). (2012).
ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Retrieved from https://www.actfl.org/resources/
actfl-proficiency-guidelines-2012
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). (2020).
Distance learning. Retrieved from https://www.actfl.org/connect/special-
interest-groups/distance-learning
Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA). (2020).
Mission statement. Retrieved from https://carla.umn.edu/about/mission.html
Center for Open Educational Resources and Language Learning (COERLL).
(2020). About COERLL. Retrieved from https://www.coerll.utexas.edu/
coerll/about-coerll
Concept to Classroom. (2004). What are the essential parts of a webquest? Retrieved
from https://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/webquests/index_
sub3.html
Crandall, J., & Tucker, G. R. (1990). Content-based instruction in second and
foreign languages. In A. Padilla, H. H. Fairchild, & C. Valadez (Eds.), Foreign
language education: Issues and strategies (pp. 187–200). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Crane, B. (2009). Using web 2.0 tools in the K–12 classroom. New York:
Neal-Schuman.
Dodge, B. (1995a). Some thoughts about webquests. Retrieved from http://
webquest.org/sdsu/about_webquests.html
Dodge, B. (1995b). WebQuests: A technique for Internet-based learning.
Distance Educator, 1(2), 10–13.
 Online Professional Development Resources  211

Genesee, F. (1994). Integrating language and content: Lessons from immersion

(Educational Practice Report 11). Santa Cruz, CA: National Center for
Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning.
Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (1997). Content-based instruction: Research foun-
dations. In M. A. Snow & D. M. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom:
Perspectives on integrating language and content (pp. 5–21). New York, NY:
Longman.
Markham, T. (2011). Project based learning. Teacher Librarian, 39(2), 38–42.
Murphy-Judy, K., & Johnshoy, M. (2017). Who’s teaching which languages
online? A report based on national surveys. IALLT Journal, 47(1), 137–167.
National Foreign Language Center University of Maryland (2020). STARTALK.
Retrieved from https://startalk.umd.edu/public/
National Foreign Language Resource Center University of Hawai’i at Mānoa
(2020a). About the NFLRC. Retrieved from http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/about/
National Foreign Language Resource Center University of Hawai’i at Mānoa
(2020b). Project-based language learning. Retrieved from http://www.nflrc.
hawaii.edu/projects/view/2014A/
National Standards Collaborative Board. (2015). World-readiness standards for
learning languages (4th ed.). Alexandria,VA: Author.
North Carolina Virtual Public School. (2020). NCVPS annual report
2018–2019. Retrieved from https://ncvps.org/annual-report-2018-19/
Wulf, W. (1993). The collaboratory opportunity. Science, 261, 854–855.
Chapter 5

A Review of Relevant
Research on Online
Language Teaching:
What Works and
Why?
Introduction
This chapter introduces research on online language teaching and learning.
The overarching purpose of this chapter is to help language educators apply
the findings of research to their online course design, development, and
delivery. While most K-12 practitioners do not have time to read research art-
icles extensively, the findings of research can yield many practical applications
for their practice. Moreover, incorporating research-based practices may help
improve learning outcomes, promote teacher and learner satisfaction, increase
learners’ perceptions of presence and connectedness, and reduce students’ lev-
els of perceived foreign language anxiety. This chapter examines themes that
are relevant to online course and program design, development, and delivery
through the lens of empirical research. Furthermore, the authors describe the
research findings and the practical implications that can be drawn from them

212
 Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching  213

in a way that is free from jargon and easily accessible to those who are unac-
customed to reading empirical research studies.To that end, the authors set out
to answer the following questions in this chapter:

●● Are online language teachers and learners more or less satisfied than their
peers who teach or learn in traditional classrooms?
●● What is the optimal class size for an online language class?
●● Do online language learners have more or less language anxiety than their
peers in traditional (brick-and-mortar) language classrooms?
●● What are the best practices for online language course delivery? How can
language instructors incorporate best practices into their online courses?
●● How can online language instructors facilitate teacher, social, and cogni-
tive presence?
●● What is connectedness and how can online language teachers promote it?
●● What types of assessments are effective for online language teaching and
learning and what types of outcomes should be measured?

Research on Online Teacher

and Learner Satisfaction
Are online language teachers and learners more or less satisfied than their
peers who teach or learn in traditional classrooms? The brief answer to this
question is: it depends! Some language educators who teach in traditional,
brick-and-mortar classrooms and who have never taught language online
believe that online language teaching is extremely burdensome, impersonal,
boring, and perhaps even ineffective for language learning. The authors
of this textbook have come across many language instructors—and even
some administrators—who feel this way. Some language instructors have
even expressed concerns to the authors that their end-of-course evaluations
would be lower if they were to teach in the online environment; therefore,
they firmly resist teaching language online. Unfortunately, there are many
negative perceptions about online courses in general—on the part of stu-
dents, instructors, and administrators—that are simply false. Most of these
negative perceptions stem from those who have never taken and/or taught
an online course. According to a large-scale national survey of stakeholders
across disciplines in higher education in the United States, less than 30%
of faculty “accept the value and legitimacy of online education” (Allen, J.
Seaman, Poulin, & Straut, 2016, p. 26). The survey found a strong correlation
between the level of acceptance of online learning and the number of online
214  Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching

students at the institution; for example, at institutions with a high number of

online students (over 10,000), the majority of faculty (60.1%) reported val-
uing online learning (Allen et al., 2016, p. 26). However, at institutions with
fewer than 5,000 online enrollments, only 34.6% of faculty reported that they
accepted the value of online education, while at institutions with no online
enrollments, only 11.6% of faculty accepted the legitimacy of online learning
(Allen et al., 2016, p. 26). It is important to note that the survey was not dis-
cipline specific, although foreign languages were included as an academic dis-
cipline. There is also a misconception that online students are located far away
from campus, perhaps in another state or country. While some online students
are physically located far from the institution where the course is delivered,
a large-scale national survey by the Babson Survey Research Group (J. E.
Seaman, Allen, & J. Seaman, 2018) found that the majority of online students
(52.8%) took at least one course on campus (p. 16). This indicates that many
students in higher education opt to take an online course for convenience. J. E.
Seaman et al. (2018) found that most students who took all of their courses
online (84.2%) were located in the same state as the higher education insti-
tution; therefore, the results of this survey indicate that online education is
becoming more localized (p. 17). Moreover, enrollment patterns reveal that
institutions of higher education are more likely to focus their recruiting efforts
and online program offerings on local students ( J. E. Seaman et al., 2018).
With respect to online language learning, Murphy-Judy and Johnshoy
(2017) found that in postsecondary settings, the most commonly taught
languages online were Spanish, English as a second language, French, and
German; however, they also found that many less commonly taught languages
such as Arabic, Chinese, Portuguese, and Russian were also widely taught
online in higher education. They noted that the majority of online language
courses were offered at the first or the second year of language instruction,
which is important because these courses feed into the higher-level courses
that are required for language minors or majors, with most of the upper-level
coursework being offered in traditional, brick-and-mortar settings. Therefore,
with respect to first and second year online language learners, both student
satisfaction and positive learning outcomes are essential for the success of
language programs across the United States.
While the findings of research demonstrate that there is a perception
among some instructors who do not teach online that online education is
not as effective as delivering instruction in a traditional classroom (Allen et al.,
2016), the results of recent research in online language education are in stark
contrast to these negative perceptions. For example, a common misperception
 Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching  215

is that student satisfaction is higher in traditional, brick-and-mortar classes

than in online classes. However, research studies that have compared student
satisfaction between online language courses and face-to-face courses have
found that students who take language classes online have higher levels of sat-
isfaction over time compared to their peers in traditional, face-to-face classes
(Chenoweth, Ushida, & Murday, 2006; Harker & Koutsantoni, 2005; Young,
2008). Regarding learning outcomes, some research has shown that students’
oral proficiency gains are similar in both online and traditional language
classes (Blake, Wilson, Cetto, & Pardo-Ballester, 2008; Chenoweth & Murday,
2003). Other studies have found that online language students outperform
their counterparts in traditional classes in written production (Chenoweth &
Murday, 2003) and in oral proficiency gains (Moneypenny & Aldrich, 2016).
According to Young (2008), the effectiveness of an online language class is
largely dependent upon the instructor’s pedagogical effectiveness. Therefore,
it is vitally important that online language educators receive sufficient pro-
fessional development in online language pedagogy, which is the overarching
purpose of this book. Chapter 4, in particular, provides a wealth of resources
for obtaining online professional development for online language teaching
and learning. Moreover, the resources outlined in Chapter 4 are mostly open
and available (free of charge) to the public.

Factors That Affect Teacher and Learner Satisfaction

Russell and Curtis (2013) found that student and teacher satisfaction are
largely dependent on factors such as institutional support, class size, teacher
preferences/characteristics, and student beliefs and expectations. According to
Russell and Curtis, both teacher and learner satisfaction are dependent upon
whether instructors receive the institutional support that they need, which
includes an environment where they have both the time and the resources
to make use of their knowledge of online language pedagogy. Conversely,
when instructors do not receive sufficient institutional support, even if they
have ample knowledge of online pedagogy and technology, then both stu-
dent and teacher satisfaction with online learning suffers. Russell and Curtis
compared levels of student and teacher satisfaction between online, second-­
semester Spanish language courses at two different universities. One of the
instructors had a class size in excess of 100 students per section, while the
other instructor had a maximum of 20 students per section. It is not sur-
prising that both the students and the instructor in the large-scale class were
much less satisfied than their counterparts in the course with fewer than
216  Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching

20 students enrolled. Unfortunately, some administrators believe that online

teaching is less burdensome than teaching in a traditional classroom; there-
fore, they view online offerings as a way to make a larger profit by enrolling
more students per section. In Russell and Curtis’ study, the instructor with
over 100 students reported that her delivery of online language instruction
was far less than optimal because she simply did not have the time to adhere
to all of the pedagogically sound principles that she knew to be effective. For
example, she was unable to provide students with sufficient opportunities for
student-student interaction and student-teacher interaction due to the time
constraints involved with grading assignments for so many students. Similarly,
the students themselves expressed their concerns. One student stated, “I have
to try and teach myself a language and the explanations were in Spanish.
The homework was just lengthy and helped little. The instructor could be a
little more involved in the subject” (Russell & Curtis, 2013, p. 9). This response
shows the student’s frustration with the course as well as her perceptions of
a lack of support from her instructor. The student’s low level of satisfaction
with the class was likely a result of the administrative decision to enroll over
100 students per online course section and thus overburden the teacher. Any
instructor who is contemplating creating an online course or program should
pay careful attention to Russell and Curtis’ findings regarding teacher and stu-
dent satisfaction and online class size.
Russell and Curtis’s (2013) findings with respect to student satisfaction
in the small-scale class support the results of previous research in this area
(Chenoweth, Ushida, & Murday, 2006; Harker & Koutsantoni, 2005; Young,
2008); namely, students who are enrolled in small online class sections with
instructors who are experts in online language pedagogy have reported high
levels of satisfaction with their online language learning experiences, even
higher than those of their peers in traditional, face-to-face, language classes.
Therefore, the research on student and teacher satisfaction points to the need
for smaller online language class sizes. More research on online class size is
available in the next section of this chapter.
Revisiting the question: Are online language teachers and learners more
or less satisfied than their peers who teach or learn in traditional classrooms?
The research that was reviewed above indicates that online language classes
can yield even higher levels of satisfaction than traditional, face-to-face classes
provided that instructors have, at a minimum, the following criteria: a reason-
able class size (see the next section for specific recommendations on online
language class size), institutional, administrative, and technical support, as well
as sufficient knowledge of online language pedagogy to design, develop, and
 Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching  217

deliver an effective course. The research findings with respect to learning out-
comes are also very promising for online language delivery, especially when
gains in oral proficiency were compared between online and traditional
language learners (Blake,Wilson, Cetto, & Pardo-Ballester, 2008; Moneypenny
& Aldrich, 2016).

Research on Online Class Size

What is the optimal class size for an online language class? There has been
very little research on class size in the fields of second and foreign language
education—whether in traditional or in online environments—even though
class size has been the subject of much debate since 1956 when the Modern
Language Association recommended that foreign language class sizes should
not exceed 20 students. Horne, who conducted research in 1970 at the
Defense Language Institute, suggested a maximum class size of 12 for effective
language learning. However, for intensive language courses, Horne (1970) rec-
ommended a class size of five to nine students. Other scholars in language
education have also made claims regarding optimal language class sizes; for
example, Alatis (1992) asserted that “class size directly affects the quality of
language instruction: the smaller the class, the more intensive the exposure
to the language and the better the results” (p. 13). Similarly, Morgan (2000)
advocated for small language class sizes due to affective factors, such as anxiety,
that come into play with language learning. In addition,Yi (2008) found that
learners in smaller language classes outperformed their peers in larger classes
in the areas of listening, reading, and writing.
Orellana (2006) asserted that online class sizes should depend on the level
of interactivity needed for students to complete the course; she claimed that
there is no one-size-fits-all approach to determining an optimal online class
size. While some disciplines may be delivered via massive open online courses
(MOOCs), which are open-access online courses that are generally self-
paced and delivered on a large scale, the MOOC model would not work well
for online language courses where a high level of interaction (both student-
student and student-teacher) is needed to develop language skills in the three
modes of communication. With respect to research on online class size in
other disciplines, Taft, Kesten, and El-Banna (2019) reviewed 58 journal art-
icles on optimal online class size in higher education across disciplines and
found that the content that is taught should dictate the online class size. For
example, they found that courses that focus on the acquisition of facts and
foundational content can have larger class sizes—of 40 or higher—and still be
218  Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching

effective, especially when little student-instructor contact is needed (Taft

et al., 2019). Conversely, their results indicated that courses that require
mastery of complex topics, higher order thinking, and/or students’ devel-
opment of skill are better suited to small class sizes of 15 or fewer students
(Taft et al., 2019). Their research supports the assertions of previous schol-
ars regarding class size (Alatis, 1992; Horne, 1970; Morgan, 2000; Orellana,
2006; Yi, 2008).
Similar to Taft et al. (2019), Goertler’s (2011) findings stress the impor-
tance of student interaction—among peers, with the materials, and with the
instructor—in online language classes. She asserted that language students can
easily become lost without ample opportunities for interaction. In order for
language instructors to build sufficient interaction into an online course, it is
imperative that the class size be relatively small.

Recommendations from Professional Organizations

on Class Size
The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL)
issued a position statement in 2010 on class size, recommending that language
classes be capped at 15 students—whether in traditional or in online environ-
ments. When drafting this position statement, ACTFL took into account the
recommendations on class size that were set forth by the National Education
Association (NEA) and the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages
(ADFL) (ADFL, 2009; NEA, 2008). ACTFL asserted that a small class size is
necessary for language learning, where frequent student-student and student-­
teacher interaction is necessary for students to develop oral and written pro-
ficiency within standards-based language programs (ACTFL, 2010). ACTFL
made no distinction between online and traditional language classrooms
regarding class size recommendations. It should be noted that ACTFL is cur-
rently reviewing their position statement on class size and the update was not
yet available at the time of this publication.
In summary, what is the optimal class size for an online language class? The
answer to this question is that online language class sizes should be small, with
a cap of 15 students per the recommendations of research and professional
organizations. While this might not be feasible in every educational setting,
online language instructors should continually advocate for small class sizes.
The research and recommendations that are presented in this chapter should
help them to do so.
 Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching  219

Research on Online Language Learner Anxiety

Do online language learners have more or less language anxiety than their
peers in traditional, face-to-face language classrooms? To answer this ques-
tion, it is important to understand the concept of foreign language classroom
anxiety. Krashen set forth the Affective Filter Hypothesis (1981, 1982), which
states that stress and anxiety create a filter in the learner’s mind that blocks
linguistic input from entering. Since comprehensible input is the most impor-
tant element for learners to build an internal grammar, otherwise known as
an implicit linguistic system, anything that prevents input from reaching the
learner is problematic and can impede language learning (Krashen, 1980,
1981, 1982, 1985).

Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS)

In 1986, E. K. Horwitz, M. Horwitz, and Cope introduced the Foreign
Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS), which is intended to measure
learners’ perceptions, beliefs, and behaviors related to learning language in a
classroom setting (E. K. Horwitz et al., 1986). According to the researchers,
language anxiety is debilitating and can have a highly negative impact on the
language acquisition process. The FLCAS incorporates three types of anx-
iety that may be felt by classroom learners: (1) communication apprehen-
sion, (2) fear of negative evaluation, and (3) test anxiety. There are 33 items
on the FLCAS survey that learners rate on a 5-pont Likert scale (ranging
from strongly agree to strongly disagree). Scores from the 33 items are added
together to arrive at an anxiety score, which ranges from 33 to 165, with
33 being a very low score (reflecting low levels of perceived anxiety) and
165 being a very high score (reflecting high levels of perceived anxiety). The
authors of the FLCAS invite language educators to use it for classroom pur-
poses; however, if individuals wish to use the FLCAS for research purposes,
they must obtain permission from its primary creator, Elaine Horwitz. The
FLCAS is available in Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope’s 1986 article, which is
published in the Modern Language Journal.

Research Using the FLCAS with Online Language Learners

It may seem logical that students in online classes would have lower levels of
perceived foreign language anxiety than their counterparts who take face-
to-face language classes—especially if students are required to stand up in class
220  Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching

and speak in front of their peers. Pichette (2009) asserted that some students
have so much language anxiety that they “resort to distance learning for that
particular reason and to seek security in anonymity” (p. 78). However, the
results of recent research show that online learners have equal amounts of
anxiety as their peers who take face-to-face language courses at the begin-
ning levels of language study (Pichette, 2009; Ushida, 2005). This may be due
to the fact that online students may also have anxiety related to the online
learning platform and/or the instructional technologies that they are required
to use in the online course (Ushida, 2005), or it may be due to the fact that
online learners are typically expected to interact with their peers in the target
language using audio and video tools, which may also be a source of foreign
language anxiety (Pichette, 2009).
Pichette (2009) conducted a large-scale study with 186 French speakers who
were learning either English or Spanish in Canada. He examined students’ gen-
eral foreign language anxiety as measured by the FLCAS, which focuses pri-
marily on oral communication. He also measured their writing anxiety with
the Daly-Miller Writing Apprehension Test and their reading anxiety with the
Foreign Language Reading Anxiety Scale. Therefore, Pichette used three dif-
ferent instruments to measure students’ speaking, reading, and writing anxiety
in the target language. While Pichette found no difference in anxiety levels
between online and face-to-face language learners at the beginning levels of
language study, he did find that anxiety tended to drop off in online language
classes among more experienced language learners. In contrast, he found equally
high levels of perceived foreign language anxiety between beginning-­level and
experienced students in traditional, brick-and-mortar classrooms. Consequently,
online language learning seems to have the advantage over classroom-based
learning with respect to perceived levels of language anxiety among more expe-
rienced language students (Pichette, 2009). In other words, Pichette (2009) found
that more advanced online language learners experience less foreign language
anxiety than their counterparts in traditional classrooms. Conversely, beginning-level
language learners in both brick-and-mortar and online environments experi-
ence equally high levels of language anxiety.
A study by Russell (2016, 2018) supports Pichette’s findings. She examined
third semester university students of Spanish who were using a synchronous
conversation platform for the first time. At the beginning of the semester, her
students’ perceived anxiety levels (as measured by the FLCAS) were very high,
but by the end of the course and after completing four, 30-minute conversa-
tions with native speakers using a conversation platform, their anxiety levels
were significantly lower. Russell’s students were asked to describe their feelings
 Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching  221

about the synchronous conversations on a discussion board at the beginning

of the semester. One student stated the following, “I feel very anxious when
it comes to foreign language. I feel less anxious with an online class, but
when I learned we have the TalkAbroad conversations, I became more anx-
ious” (Russell, 2016). This student’s comment revealed that she believed that
online language learning would be less stressful than classroom-based language
learning. However, after enrolling in the online course, she became even more
anxious when she learned that she had to interact with native speakers online.
Another student commented, “As far as the TalkAbroad goes, I am so scared
of it that I didn’t even DO the first one” (Russell, 2016). From this comment,
it appears that this student’s perceived levels of foreign language anxiety were
so high at the beginning of the term that he did not even complete the first
assigned conversation. As the semester moved forward, he did complete the
subsequent conversations and his reported anxiety levels diminished with each
one. One of the students experienced very high levels of perceived foreign
language anxiety; he stated, “I do not like posting oral work for the course
in Spanish. Speaking in front of others is definitely one of my biggest fears.
Even just imagining someone watching me speak in Spanish (even like post-
ing a video of myself to get graded) makes me nervous. I have experienced a
lot of foreign language anxiety while in college” (Russell, 2016). This com-
ment illustrates the high level of language anxiety that may be felt by online
language learners.
Students’ high levels of language anxiety at the beginning of the term in
Russell’s study were likely attributed to a combination of fears related to the
new technology (the conversation platform), fears regarding speaking in the
target language in front of native speakers, as well as fears about having their
conversations recorded. However, with time and experience using the con-
versation platform, Russell (2018) found that “students’ anxiety levels were
significantly lower at the end of the course compared to the beginning of the
semester” (p. 62).
The research on foreign language anxiety in online learning environments
indicates that online learners do experience language anxiety, especially at the
beginning levels of language learning. Therefore, online instructors should be
aware of their students’ foreign language anxiety and take steps to help alle-
viate it. For example, the instructor may post encouraging messages on the
course discussion board and/or send individual messages to students reassuring
them and letting them know that their feelings of anxiety will diminish over
time and with practice using the language. Instructors should also consider
using the same types of technologies and platforms throughout the semester
222  Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching

so that students can become accustomed to them, which should also help
decrease their perceived anxiety levels over time. Providing technical and
language learning support up front may also help decrease students’ language
anxiety. With respect to technical support, instructors should create a tech-
nical help module that outlines all of the technologies that will be used in
the course with help contact details for each technology tool or application
that is employed. Goertler (2011) also suggested that instructors analyze their
students’ language development and computer literacy at the beginning of
the course to determine what types of assistance and resources are needed;
she also suggested that online learners require course navigation help, imme-
diate feedback, and consistency in learner and teacher roles. Incorporating
Goertler’s (2011) recommendations should help reduce learners’ language
anxiety at the beginning of the course. With respect to language sup-
port, online tutoring (furnished by the institution, the department, or the
instructor), peer support discussion groups, and virtual office hours may help
meet students’ language learning needs and therefore help diminish their
perceptions of language anxiety.
Revisiting the question: Do online learners have more or less language
anxiety than their peers in traditional, face-to-face language classrooms?
After reviewing the research above, it appears that both online and class-
room-based language learners can experience significant levels of foreign
language anxiety at the early stages of language learning. While anxiety
appears to diminish with experience for online learners, classroom-based
learners seem to maintain high levels of anxiety when speaking in the target
language in front of their peers at all levels of instruction. Therefore, the
online environment appears to have the advantage over the traditional, face-
to-face environment after students complete their first semester of language
study (Pichette, 2009).

Research on Best Practices for Online

Language Teaching
What are the best practices for online language course delivery? How can
language instructors incorporate best practices into their online courses? Thus
far, only a handful of research studies have focused on best practices for online
language teaching, which the authors review below. Given that there is scant
research on best practices for instructing language online, the research on gen-
eral best practices for online teaching across disciplines will also be highlighted
in this section; however, the authors examine these findings through the lens
 Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching  223

of language teaching and make recommendations for incorporating them in

online, blended, and flipped language classes.

Research on Best Practices in Online Language

Teaching Contexts
With respect to best practices, Don (2005) surveyed a pool of Spanish language
teaching experts, Spanish language course developers, and online Spanish
language students to determine the characteristics of effective online language
courses. Don’s findings are presented in Table 5.1.
Among the items listed in Table 5.1, the first five were found to be of
paramount importance and Items 6–12 were found to be of secondary
importance for effective online language courses. In terms of design, devel-
opment, and delivery, it is noteworthy that the first nine of the twelve items
in Table 5.1 pertain to online course design and development, including all
five of the characteristics found to be of primary importance. This should
underscore the necessity of putting forth the time and effort up front to
create a solid online course design and to develop each component care-
fully. Therefore, online language course developers should strongly consider
engaging in alpha testing (having colleagues and other stakeholders evaluate the
course design as it is being developed) and beta testing (having actual students

Table 5.1  Don’s (2005) characteristics of effective online language courses

Features of Primary Features of Secondary

Importance in Rank Order Importance in Rank Order
(1) Clear instructions from the teacher (6) Infusing culture into the curriculum
(2) Opportunities for student-teacher (7) Providing clear expectations of
interaction students
(3) The incorporation of all four skills (8) Having a strong course organization
(reading, writing, listening, and speaking)
into the curriculum
(4) The inclusion of audio-based content (9) Furnishing sample assignments and
assessments
(5) Opportunities for student-student (10) Having a competent language
interaction instructor in place
(11) Providing a prompt student
response time
(12) Having one-on-one contact with
students (e.g., phone calls, virtual
meetings)
224  Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching

evaluate these items to check for clarity of expression, ease of navigation, and
whether the course design is intuitive among other items). See Chapter 1 for a
deeper explanation of online course design and alpha/beta testing.
Items 1, 7, and 8 from Table 5.1 pertain to being clear in the instructions
and expectations provided to students as well as in the overall course design.
A good place to post these expectations is in the “Getting Started” module.
In addition to a well-developed “Getting Started” module (See Chapter 1,
Learner Orientation, for more details), it is also a good idea to provide either
a synchronous or a recorded course orientation presentation that highlights
the course expectations regarding communication (e.g., how often students
should sign on to the online course and where and how often they should
check their course e-mail, course discussion posts, announcements, etc.).
Expectations regarding workload should also be clear (e.g., how much time
they should spend on the course each week, how many assignments they are
expected to complete each week, what days and times assignments are due,
etc.). Item 9, furnishing sample assignments and assessments, is likely a best
practice whether the course is face-to-face or online. However, with online
classes, these items may help clarify student expectations.
Items 2 through 6 from Table 5.1 should be built into the course at the design
phase and then executed at the development and delivery phases. Items 2 and
5 deal specifically with interaction, both student-teacher and student-student.
While it could be argued that interaction is instrumental in online courses
across disciplines, it is of paramount importance in online language courses, as
learners must listen to comprehensible input in the target language, produce
target language output, and interact with their teacher and their peers in the
target language in order to negotiate meaning and build proficiency (Krashen
1980, 1981, 1982, 1985; Swain, 1985, 1993, 1995, 1998; Long, 1985, 1996).
Item 3 (incorporating all four skills) and Item 6 (teaching culture) from
Table 5.1 are specific to language course development. While ESL instruction
still focuses on instructing the four skills, world language education has moved
to the three modes of communication (interpretive, interpersonal, and pre-
sentational). Interpretive communication occurs in the reading, viewing, and
listening modalities, while presentational and interpersonal communication
occurs in the spoken and written modalities. The difference between presen-
tational and interpersonal communication is whether students have time to
practice and rehearse their production, which they do in the former but not
in the latter. While Item 4, using audio-based content, is a good idea for any
online course, it is essential in an online language course. Students need to
hear the language as it is spoken by native speakers, they need opportunities
 Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching  225

to produce the language (orally and in writing), and they must interact with
others to negotiate meaning, all of which must be done through audio- or
video-based tools and content. See Chapter 3 for a review of the modes of
communication and Chapter 2 for a review of audio-based tools.
Teaching culture, Item 6 from Table 5.1, was covered in Chapter 3. It is
impossible to divorce language and culture while teaching an effective online
language course and Don’s (2005) research underscores this. Moreover, the
infusion of culture into the course can increase students’ interest and moti-
vation to learn the content. One way to teach language and culture simul-
taneously is to incorporate pragmatics-focused instruction, which is also
covered in Chapter 3.
Item 10 from Table 5.1, having a competent language instructor in place, is
key for the success of any course. However, in an online language course, the
instructor needs to be not only a content expert in the target language (with
a minimum proficiency of Advanced Low for the most commonly taught
languages in the United States), but also an expert in instructional technology
and online pedagogy. As was discussed in Chapter 3, most initial language teacher
preparation programs do not incorporate online language teaching into their
curricula. Therefore, language teachers who deliver online language courses must
seek out professional development in technology and in online language peda-
gogy to be successful. The authors hope that this book, in particular the profes-
sional development opportunities described in Chapter 4, will help fill this need.
The final item from Table 5.1, Item 12, highlights the importance of having
one-on-one contact with students.While student-teacher interaction (Item 2)
can include interactions between one teacher and many students, Don’s (2005)
findings indicate that building a personal relationship with each student
through one-on-one communication is a key factor in an effective online
language course. This recommendation resonates with the authors of this
book who are experienced online language instructors. At the end of a course,
it is not unusual for students to express that they got to know their online
language teacher better than their teachers in their face-to-face courses. This
is likely because there are often more frequent, and/or longer, one-on-one
interactions in online language classes than in traditional, brick-and-­mortar
classes. In a traditional classroom, students can easily ask their peers for help
and few students linger after class or visit their instructor during office hours.
Conversely, whenever online students need help, whether with the language
content or with the instructional technologies used to deliver the course, they
must reach out to their instructor. These recurrent, one-on-one interactions
build rapport between the teacher and student.
226  Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching

While the recommendations from Don’s study make sense and they are
aligned with the principles of sound instructional design, they are not all inclu-
sive. Moreover, the study had a small number of participants and the research
took place over a decade ago. More research is urgently needed in this area,
especially studies that query a large number of stakeholders who teach both
commonly and less commonly taught languages online across various con-
texts and levels. Vorobel and Kim (2012) reviewed the empirical research on
distance language education between 2005 and 2010 and they found that most
studies focused on the instruction of ESL, Spanish, and German at the grad-
uate or undergraduate level, with only one study at the high school level.They
stated that more research is urgently needed across a variety of languages and,
most importantly, in K-12 settings.Vorobel and Kim (2012) also claimed that
there was insufficient research on student engagement and student-teacher
interaction in online language courses. Future research in these areas will help
scholars make recommendations regarding best practices for online language
course delivery.

Research on Best Practices in Online Teaching Across Disciplines

Given that there has been scant research conducted on best practices that are
specific for online language course delivery, it is useful to look to examples
from other discipline areas. Boettcher and Conrad (2016) reviewed the lit-
erature across disciplines in higher education with respect to online course
design, development, and delivery and they asserted that there are 14 best
practices as shown in Table 5.2.
Interestingly, only Practice 3 from Table 5.2 (set explicit expectations)
overlaps with Don’s (2005) findings. Therefore, it will be helpful for online
language instructors to be familiar with Boettcher and Conrad’s (2016) best
practices, which the authors of this book present through the lens of online
language teaching.While some of their recommendations are self-explanatory,
others may require a bit of unpacking, which will be done with examples
that are relevant to online language teaching and learning. The first, and most
important, best practice on the list—to be present in the course—will be
covered extensively in the next section of this chapter (research on teaching,
social, and cognitive presence). The concept of presence was also introduced
and described in detail in Chapter 1.
Creating a supportive online community, Practice 2, could be achieved in
an online language course in several ways. One way is to create a help discus-
sion board where students can ask questions and receive help and support both
 Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching  227

Table 5.2  Best practices for eLearning: Boettcher and Conrad’s 10 plus 4

Best Practices for Teaching Online

Best Practice Description
Best practice 1 Be present at the course site.
Best practice 2 Create a supportive online course community.
Best practice 3 Develop a set of explicit expectations for your learners and yourself
as to how you will communicate and how much time students
should be working on the course each week.
Best practice 4 Use a variety of large group, small group, and individual work
experiences.
Best practice 5 Use synchronous and asynchronous activities.
Best practice 6 Ask for informal feedback early in the term.
Best practice 7 Prepare discussion posts that invite responses, questions, discussions,
and reflections.
Best practice 8 Search out and use content resources that are available in digital format.
Best practice 9 Combine core concept learning with customized and personalized
learning.
Best practice 10 Plan a good closing and wrap activity for the course.
Best practice 11 Assess as you go by gathering evidences of learning.
Best practice 12 Rigorously connect content to core concepts and learning outcomes.
Best practice 13 Develop and use a content frame for your course.
Best practice 14 Design experiences to help learners make progress on their novice-
to-expert journey.
*Note. Boettcher, J., & Conrad, R. M. (2016). The online teaching survival guide (2nd): Simple and practical peda-
gogical tips (p. 45). San Francisco: Wiley/Jossey-Bass. Copyright © 2016 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
All rights reserved.
Used with permission.

from both the teacher and from their peers. When online language teachers
encourage peers to answer each other’s questions on the help discussion board,
then all students can feel more supported in the course. It is quite possible that
students will be working on the course at all hours of the day and night.While
it is not possible for one instructor to be online and available 24/7, it is highly
likely that other students will also be online and working at the same time
as those who need help. Therefore, students can help and support each other
in real time. Online teachers can encourage this by praising those who help
their peers or by giving them extra credit. Another, more subtle way of cre-
ating a supportive online community is to take care when answering students’
questions via e-mail. It is very easy to interpret a negative tone in e-mails.
Online language instructors need to remember that their students are alone
in cyberspace and they may be lost and confused in the language learning
228  Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching

process or they may require technical help to complete their assignments.

Therefore, online instructors should explicitly state that they care for and are
concerned about their students’ success and well-being when answering stu-
dents’ e-mails—this can go a long way in creating a supportive environment.
For example, online students often begin e-mail messages stating, “I am so
sorry to bother you.” It is important for learners to know that they are not a
bother and that their questions and concerns are important to the instructor.
Therefore, a response such as, “You are no bother, I am here to help you!” can
put students at ease right away so that they feel comfortable reaching out to
the instructor when help is needed. Another way to support online language
learners is to place them in peer support groups. These small groups can be
used not only for course projects and assignments, but also as a place where
peers can help each other with the online language learning process. Students
in peer support groups could be encouraged to contact each other for help
with assignments as well as for peer tutoring. Peer support groups could have
their own private discussion board as well as their own online meeting space
to connect and collaborate with each other when needed.
Practice 3, developing a set of explicit workload and communication expec-
tations for learners and instructors, overlaps with Don’s (2005) recommen-
dation of providing clear expectations of students. However, Boettcher and
Conrad (2016) take it step further by stating that clear expectations should be
made not only for the students but also for the instructor. Therefore, instruc-
tors should provide information up front on their availability (e.g., office
hours, whether on campus or online), what days and times they will be work-
ing online, and when students should expect to have their assignments and
assessments graded (e.g., grades will be posted within one week of the due
date). Online instructors are advised to be available online at set times and
to hold virtual office hours.This can be achieved either through the learning
management system (LMS) where the course is delivered or through other
applications such as Skype, Zoom, Google Meet, or GoToMeeting to name
a few. Students could then seek assistance during the days and times that
are convenient for the teacher. Instructors may not wish to work over
the weekend; if so, they should state this explicitly up front. They should
also let students know how long it will take to receive a response to their
e-mail inquiries (e.g., students will receive a reply within 24 hours, Monday
through Friday).
The fourth best practice—using a variety of large group, small group, and
individual work experiences—could also be achieved through the use of peer
support groups, as described above. In addition, students could be assigned a
 Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching  229

course partner who is also part of their peer support group. Having a partner
and a small peer support group would also help combat the loneliness that
students may feel when taking an online language course. Moreover, the inter-
action in the target language that students have with their partner and/or their
peer group is also highly conducive to language learning, as even Novice stu-
dents who interact with each other will need to negotiate meaning, which is
an essential factor for second language acquisition (Long, 1985, 1996). Large-
group activities could take place during whole class discussions, synchronous
class sessions, and/or during course projects where students are required to
review their peers’ work.
Using both synchronous and asynchronous activities is the fifth best
practice and it is of paramount importance for online language learning.
Language students must engage in the three modes of communication (inter-
pretive, interpersonal, and presentational) and it is extremely challenging to
engage in interpersonal—or person to person—communication asynchro-
nously because it is impossible to determine whether learners have consulted
outside resources in the formulation of their responses. Conversely, it is not
difficult for online language instructors to curate interpretive listening and
reading materials that are authentic, such as electronic newspapers and mag-
azines, podcasts, and blogs. Authentic materials are those that were created
by and/or for native speakers of the language. For presentational speaking,
students can make audio or video recordings in the target language, which
allows them to practice, rehearse, and re-record as needed. However, when
engaging in the interpersonal mode, it is easiest to do this in real time. This
may be achieved in a number of ways; for example, instructors may pair
students up for synchronous conversations, they may use a conversation plat-
form such as TalkAbroad, LinguaMeeting, or WeSpeke, where learners have
conversations with native speakers in real time, or they may take part in
a language exchange where they interact with their peers from the target
language country (links to conversation and language exchange platforms are
available in the eResources for Chapter 3).
Teachers may also engage with their students synchronously on an indi-
vidual basis or in small groups. A number of tools such as Zoom, Skype,
Blackboard Collaborate, or any other online meeting tool may be used to
facilitate synchronous interpersonal communication (see Chapter 2 for more
information on online meeting tools). Interpersonal communication can also
occur in the written modality asynchronously through virtual chat bots that
simulate real-time communication (students view the input once and they
have a set amount of time to reply using a timer) and synchronously through
230  Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching

applications such as text chat and Twitter where students interact with their
peers in real time. It should be noted that some online programs only offer
asynchronous delivery of instruction; therefore, students’ engagement in the
interpersonal mode of communication must rely on technology tools and
applications.
Asking for informal feedback early on, the sixth best practice, allows instruc-
tors to take the pulse of the online class. Most learning management platforms
have a survey tool. If instructors do not have access to one, then a free tool such
as Google Forms or SurveyMonkey may be used. Online language instructors
should ask students their perceptions regarding the workload and whether it
is manageable, how well they are able to navigate the online content (e.g., the
location of online assignments, assessments, and interactions), how well they
are able to comprehend the online target language input, how supported they
feel in the course by the instructor, how timely the instructor’s responses to
their questions are, and whether the assessments adequately measure learners’
knowledge, skills, and understandings of the target language and cultures. If
student feedback is provided prior to the middle of the semester, then the
instructor will have time to make adjustments to the course to better meet
students’ needs. This practice will likely result in higher student evaluations at
the end of the course.
Boettcher and Conrad’s (2016) seventh best practice is to create discussion
board posts that promote student reflections, responses, questions, and discus-
sions. In an online language class, this recommendation could be combined
with their fourth recommendation of using a variety of large group, small
group, and individual work experiences. Separate discussion boards could be
set up for paired and small group work in the target language. Instructors
could even differentiate their instruction by creating flexible groupings—or
groupings that continually change based on student background knowledge,
needs, or interests. If students are grouped by ability on discussion boards, then
instructors could provide additional challenge for advanced students as well as
additional support for those who struggle to grasp concepts. With respect to
an online language class, discussions should not merely focus on the technical
aspects of language (e.g., grammar and vocabulary); rather, students should be
encouraged to make cultural comparisons, connections to other disciplines,
and connections to their everyday lives. By connecting language content to
other disciplines such as history, geography, and English/Language Arts, stu-
dents’ understandings of both the target language and other disciplines are
strengthened. Moreover, teaching language through content is a powerful way
to facilitate the language acquisition process.
 Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching  231

In addition, instructors should stimulate cultural comparisons on discus-

sion boards, with students examining cultural products and practices as well
as the perspectives that underpin them. By focusing on rich cultural content,
course discussion posts will be more interesting for students, thus promoting
deeper student reflections. At the early stages of language learning, cultural
instruction and subsequent discussions may need to occur in English to pro-
mote students’ cultural awareness. Language instructors should also keep in
mind that students will be able to understand what they hear and read in the
target language at a higher level than they can speak and write. Therefore,
online language teachers may provide authentic audio or video clips for
Novice Low through Intermediate Low students in the target language,
while allowing their oral or written discussions of cultural topics to take
place in English.
In their book, Boettcher and Conrad (2016) provide a number of tips on
how to create rich discussion posts as well as how to create rubrics for course
discussions that facilitate deeper reflection and student engagement (Chapter 2
also covers this content). They also advocate the use of staggered due dates for
discussion posts so that students are encouraged to communicate with and
connect to each other on a regular basis throughout the course. Their 2016
book is a suggestion for further reading for those who wish to delve further
into the topic of best practices for eLearning.
Thinking digital for all course content, the eighth best practice, refers to
using content that is available digitally (Boettcher & Conrad, 2016). It may
seem self-evident that online courses should use eBooks, online materials,
and digital resources, but many language instructors who teach in traditional
classrooms may be accustomed to using a printed textbook. It should be noted
that using print materials only is not an effective practice for online course
delivery. Most language textbooks that are available on the secondary and post-
secondary markets have online versions. Many of them also have additional
online resources available, such as online workbooks and online lab manuals.
However, some online students will still want to have printed versions of
the course materials in addition to their eBooks and online resources; this is
acceptable provided that students understand that they must access the course
and submit their assignments online. Having printed versions of the course
texts allows students to study in different locations and it may ease the eye
strain that can occur from spending numerous hours reading online; to that
end, some publishers provide loose-leaf copies of their books that students
can place in a three ring binder—these cost less than hardcover texts and are
more portable.
232  Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching

Thinking digitally also refers to taking advantage of the capabilities of the

online language learning environment by employing audio, video, animation,
and/or other multimedia tools and resources that facilitate language learning. It
is also important to ensure that course content is accessible via mobile devices.
As today’s students often access their online courses via their mobile phones,
it is increasingly important that textbooks, platforms, and other resources are
able to be displayed and accessed via mobile devices.
The ninth best practice, according to Boettcher and Conrad (2016), is to
combine core concept learning with customized and personalized learning.
The first step in this process is to have well-developed core concepts that are
linked to the course learning objectives during the online language course
design and development process (See Chapters 1 and 2). The second step
includes personalizing the learning for each student, which can be achieved
when students set their own language learning goals that are tied to the course
learning objectives. While it may seem daunting to personalize learning for
each student in the online class, there are some important resources avail-
able that can help instructors to do so; namely, the National Council of State
Supervisors for Languages (NCSSFL) and ACTFL created the NCSSFL-
ACTFL (2017) Can-Do Statements that describe what language learners can
do at each stage of proficiency (Novice, Intermediate, and Advanced) across
the three modes of communication. The NCSSFL-ACTFL (2017) Can-Do
Statements also encompass students’ development of intercultural communi-
cative competence (ICC) with specific statements that focus on intercultural
communication.
Speakers who attain ICC, according to Byram (1997), not only gain an
inside view of another culture, they also attempt to understand their own cul-
ture from another cultural perspective. Similarly, the World-Class Instructional
Design and Assessment (WIDA) consortium developed the WIDA (2016)
Can-Do Descriptors, Key Uses Edition, Grades K-12 for English language
learners at six levels of English language proficiency (Entering, Emerging,
Developing, Expanding, Bridging, and Reaching). These Can-Do Statements
and Descriptors may be used by students to set their own language and
culture learning goals. In online language classrooms, learners could be
encouraged to examine the learning outcomes that are listed in the weekly
modules as well as a list of the relevant Can-Do Statements or Descriptors.
Students could then select the Can-Do Statements/Descriptors that reflect
their own language learning goals in relation to the course and/or module
learning outcomes. This is a powerful way to connect the core concepts
that are covered in the course to students’ customized and personalized
 Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching  233

learning. Instructors could also ask students to self-reflect at the end of each
module to determine whether or not their own learning goals were met.
This reflection tool would enable instructors to identify when remediation is
needed on a particular topic for individual learners.
Boettcher and Conrad’s (2016) tenth best practice is to create a good closing/
wrap activity for the online course.This is an opportunity for students to reflect
on their learning and to summarize the key takeaways that they have gleaned
from the course. In an online language course, students may reflect on all of
the NCSSFL-ACTFL (2017) Can-Do Statements or WIDA (2016) Can Do
Descriptors that they have met. This type of activity can provide language stu-
dents with a sense of accomplishment. They may also wrap up the course with
a role-play or presentation in the target language using the language forms,
structures, and cultural knowledge that they mastered throughout the weekly
learning modules. The closing activity should require students to engage in
target language communication within a meaningful cultural context. In other
words, learners should use language in authentic, real-world contexts that focus
on the notions and functions of language (See Chapter 3 for a review of com-
municative competence and language notions/functions).
Best Practice 11 is to engage in continual assessment and data gathering to
provide evidence of student learning (Boettcher & Conrad, 2016). Because
assessment is such an important part of an online language course, the research
on effective assessment practices for language learning is discussed at length a
bit later in this chapter. With online courses, each module will have module
learning objectives that are tied to the overall course learning objectives and
goals. A good practice is to assess each module’s learning objectives before stu-
dents are able to move on to the next module. It is also important to use assess-
ment data to modify future instruction. For example, if the majority of the
class performs poorly on a module assessment, then additional instruction may
be needed before students are allowed to move on in the course. This is espe-
cially important in a language course where the grammatical forms and struc-
tures build upon each other and where students are expected to create with
language using increasingly complex knowledge and understandings. Because
language learning is different from other types of learning, special attention
must be paid to how language learning is assessed. The forthcoming section
on assessment delves deep into this process by providing the findings from
research on effective assessment practices for language teaching and learning.
According to Boettcher and Conrad (2016), Best Practice 12 is to connect
course content to core concepts and learning outcomes.This practice is directly
related to the concepts of backward design (see Chapter 1) and lesson alignment,
234  Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching

which refers to the connection between learning outcomes, learning activities,

and lesson assessments. When a lesson is aligned, then the objectives, activities,
and assessments reinforce one another such that the lesson activities facilitate
mastery of the learning objectives and the assessments measure what the stu-
dents are actually learning. For online language classes, one way to ensure that
the core concepts are covered is to base each lesson on professional standards.
Language educators can tie their course content to core concepts and learning
outcomes if they base their lessons on professional standards, write realistic
learning objectives regarding what learners can do at each level of proficiency,
and tie their learning objectives, lesson activities, and lesson assessments to their
selected standards. Creating lessons that are well aligned is of paramount impor-
tance for effective language instruction in every type of learning environment,
whether traditional, blended, flipped, or online. See Chapter 3 for a review of
lesson design, professional standards, and student proficiency level.
Best Practice 13 is to create and implement a content frame for the online
course (Boettcher & Conrad, 2016). A content frame is a graphic or con-
cept map that provides a visual overview of the course. One way to create
a simple content frame for the course is to create a storyboard, which is a
sequence of panels in which the instructor lays out the framework of the
course. For example, if the course is taught over a period of eight weeks,
then the instructor would create eight panels, one for each weekly module.
Each panel would contain a visual image that depicts that core content that
is covered in that module. The instructor can also provide an overview of the
key assignments, assessments and interactions that will be completed in the
module. Figure 5.1 depicts an example of a simple content frame for an eight-
week introductory Spanish course using the storyboard approach. Concept
maps, or wireframes, often use a set of images to depict the functionality and
navigation of the course. Therefore, instructors could create a storyboard to
visually depict the content and a wireframe to show the course navigation. See
Chapter 1, which covers concept maps/wireframes in greater detail.
By viewing the content frame, students will gain an understanding of both
the core content that is covered in the course as well as how the course is laid
out. Furthermore, content frames that incorporate images provide an anticipa-
tory set for students, which is a way to pique students’ interest and prime them
for the lesson content. Content frames could be placed either on the syllabus,
in the Start Here module, or both. In addition, each image from the story-
board could be embedded in the weekly modules as a visual representation of
the lesson content. See Figure 5.2 for an example of how an image from the
content frame could be used to introduce a weekly module.
 Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching  235

Figure 5.1  Content frame for an eight-week Spanish course.

Using a content frame and then repeating the images to introduce the weekly
modules facilitates a cohesive course structure and design. Moreover, images
can provide a powerful representation of key content, while the content frame
allows students to gain a holistic sense of a course (Boettcher & Conrad, 2016).

Figure 5.2  Introduction to a module in an online Spanish course on D2L’s Brightspace platform.
D2L product screenshot reprinted with permission from D2L Corporation.
236  Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching

Infusing the online course with images is also a helpful way to personalize
the course. However, instructors need to keep in mind that images must be
free from copyright protections before embedding them into their courses.
The photos that were used above were obtained from Pexels, which is a website
that provides openly available stock photos and videos on hundreds of topics.
Authors and course designers are free to use Pexels’ images in their creative
works, but they are not allowed to sell the images to others.
Boettcher and Conrad’s (2016) final best practice, Best Practice 14, is to
create learning experiences that help students move forward on their
novice-to-expert journey. With respect to language learning, students are
often exposed to mixed messages in the media regarding how long it takes to
become an expert (or to achieve Advanced proficiency) in a second language.
Some products claim that a language can be learned in a few days, or in a few
weeks, or even while the learner sleeps! Therefore, it is not surprising that
many students enter beginning-level language courses with unrealistic expec-
tations regarding what is possible, or even probable, at the end of one semester
of language study. Perhaps the best thing that online language instructors can
do with respect to this final best practice is to let students know exactly how
long it takes to become conversationally fluent in another language. This will
help learners not to feel discouraged about the slow pace of their own language
learning. It is also important to explain to students that conversational fluency
is different than near-native fluency, which could take a lifetime to achieve.
With conversational fluency, learners can understand most of what they read
and hear with respect to everyday topics; however, they may not understand
more complex, technical topics. Regarding speaking skills, learners with con-
versational fluency have clear pronunciation and their production is mostly
accurate; moreover, they are easily understood by sympathetic native speakers.
The context of language learning is also a key factor in how long it will take
to achieve conversational fluency. Those learning a foreign language without
the benefit of immersion in the second language context will take longer
to achieve conversational fluency compared to those studying language with
full immersion in the second language context. In other words, students who
take formal coursework while being immersed in the second language
context—such as studying Spanish in Spain or learning English while living in
the United States—will typically learn at a quicker pace than those studying
a foreign language without the benefit of immersion in the second language
context (Lafford, 2006). Dual immersion students are also likely to learn a
second language more quickly than their peers in traditional schools (where
they are only exposed to the target language a few hours per week).With dual
 Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching  237

immersion schools, students spend half of their day learning content through
the vehicle of the first language and the other half of their day learning con-
tent through the vehicle of the second language (e.g., a U.S. history class
taught in Spanish).
The Foreign Service Institute (FSI) has set forth parameters on how many
classroom hours it takes for native English speakers, on average, to achieve pro-
fessional working proficiency in various foreign languages based on the level of
difficulty of the target language. It is important to note that professional work-
ing proficiency is a higher level of proficiency than conversational fluency; it
is classified as level 3 on the Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) scale,
which is the proficiency scale used by the FSI. According to North (2006), an
ILR score of 3 corresponds to Superior according to the ACTFL Proficiency
Guidelines (ACTFL, 2012) or to C1 according to the Common European
Framework of Reference (CEFR) for Languages: Learning, Teaching, and
Assessment scale (Council of Europe, 2011). The FSI parameters do not reflect
how long it would take to achieve near-native fluency in the foreign language
nor do they reflect how long it would take to achieve professional working
proficiency through immersion. See Chapter 1 for a cross walk of the ACTFL,
ILR, and CEFR scales.
The FSI has classified languages into four categories from the easiest to the
most difficult for native English speakers to learn. They also provide estimates
of the number of classroom hours required to learn a wide array of languages
in each of the four categories (U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service
Institute, n.d.). Table 5.3 below presents FSI’s language categories and the

Table 5.3  FSI’s language leaning timelines

Number of
Category Classroom Hours Language
I 600–750 Danish, Dutch, French, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese,
Romanian, Spanish, Swedish
II 900 German, Haitian Creole, Indonesian, Malay, Swahili
III 1,100 Albanian, Amharic, Armenian, Azerbaijani, Bengali, Bulgarian,
Burmese, Czech, Dari, Estonian, Farsi, Finnish, Georgian,
Greek, Hebrew, Hindi, Hungarian, Icelandic, Kazakh, Khmer,
Kyrgyz, Kurdish, Lao, Latvian, Lithuanian, Macedonian,
Mongolian, Nepali, Polish, Russian, Serbo-Croatian, Sinhala,
Slovak, Slovenian, Somali,Tagalog,Tajiki,Tamil,Telugu,Thai,
Tibetan,Turkish,Turkmen, Ukrainian, Uzbek, Urdu,Vietnamese
IV 2,200 Arabic, Chinese (Cantonese), Chinese (Mandarin), Japanese,
Korean
*Note. Data obtained from U.S. State Department, Foreign Service Institute, n.d.
238  Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching

required number of classroom hours to learn each language in a given category.

Category I and II languages are similar to English, while Category III and IV
languages have significant differences—both linguistically and culturally—from
English. Category IV languages are noted for being exceptionally difficult for
native speakers of English to learn.
It is important to understand that the estimated number of classroom hours
presented on the table above does not include the hours that learners must
spend studying and completing assignments on their own outside of class;
therefore, including the additional self-study hours would essentially triple the
number of hours required to learn each language that is listed in Table 5.3.The
FSI notes on their website that the list of Category III languages in the table
above is not exhaustive.
By providing students with information on how long it really takes to
achieve Advanced proficiency in another language, they will have a better
understanding of their novice-to-expert journey. Boettcher and Conrad’s Best
Practice 14 could be applied to overall program design, with undergraduate
students beginning at the Novice Low or A1 level of proficiency and moving
through a series of articulated and sequenced language courses over the span
of four years so that they could potentially reach Advanced Low or B2 profi-
ciency by graduation. In order to reach higher levels of proficiency, students
may need to seek immersion experiences through study abroad and/or pursue
further language study in graduate school.
Revisiting the questions: What are the best practices for online language
course delivery? How can language instructors incorporate best practices into
their online courses? The research reviewed above provides clear guidance as
well as practical advice for language educators to follow with respect to the
integration of best practices. While it would be extremely difficult to incorpo-
rate all of the best practices listed in this chapter with the first iteration of an
online language class; over time, instructors could continually strive to improve
by adding in one or two new best practices with each subsequent delivery of the
course. If faculty are required to set annual goals at their institutions, then adding
in a new best practice to each online course each year would not only satisfy the
goal-setting requirement, but it would also likely result in more effective, effi-
cient, and satisfying online experiences for both the students and the instructor.
Moreover, as was discussed in Chapter 1, online instructors should continu-
ally evaluate their instructional design, development, and delivery in order to
improve their courses, and in turn their learners’ experiences.
In this chapter, Boettcher and Conrad’s (2016) 14 best practices for online
course delivery were presented with specific examples from foreign and
 Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching  239

second language teaching contexts. The authors recognize the important

work that Boettcher and Conrad have done to synthesize the relevant liter-
ature in general online course design, development, and delivery to create
their list of best practices, and they hope that their interpretation of the
practices through the lens of online language teaching builds upon their
important work.

Research on Teaching, Social, and Cognitive

Presence
How can online language instructors facilitate teaching, social, and cognitive
presence? Presence is perhaps one of the most important facets of a successful
online course across all disciplines. Shin (2003) asserted that success rates in
online courses are positively impacted by the psychological presence of the
institution, the instructor, and the learner’s peers. Similarly, Angelino,Williams,
and Natvig (2007) claimed that building relationships among peers and/or
cohorts is essential for the successful completion of online courses or pro-
grams. Boettcher and Conrad (2016) asserted that the first best practice to
follow for online course delivery is “Be present at the course site” (p. 45).
According to Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2000), there are three types
of presence—social, teaching, and cognitive presence—with each of them
being necessary to ensure that both instructors and students have efficient,
effective, and satisfying experiences in the online teaching and learning envi-
ronment. Social presence refers to the connection between individuals that
is based on their unique backgrounds and personal interests, which includes
their lifestyles, hobbies, and family relationships; teaching presence includes all
of the behaviors in which faculty engage to design, direct, mentor, and guide
students’ online learning experiences throughout the course; and cognitive
presence refers to the support that students receive regarding their intellec-
tual growth and their development of knowledge, skills, and understandings
(Boettcher & Conrad, 2016).
Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, and Archer (2001) proposed that instructors cre-
ate a community of inquiry in their online courses by fostering the three types
of presence. Given that instructors are typically content experts in their fields and
that they are accustomed to supporting student learning, it is often much less dif-
ficult for them to cultivate teaching and cognitive presence than social presence.
Moreover, some research has shown that social presence, which is sometimes
overlooked in the online environment, may be the mediating factor between
cognitive and teaching presence (Garrison, Cleveland-Innes & Fung, 2010;
240  Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching

Shea & Bidjerano, 2009). Garrison et al. (2000) asserted that learners’ social
and emotional interactions are of paramount importance for the development
of their social connections and for the creation of an online community of
inquiry, where students actively explore, create, and develop understandings
collaboratively. In other words, when social, teaching, and cognitive presence
overlap, meaningful collaboration occurs and a community of inquiry exists
(Garrison et al., 2000).

Indicators of Social Presence

Certain types of behaviors in the online environment are indicators of social
presence, and these indicators can be broken down into three categories:
affective, interactive, and cohesive (Garrison et al., 2000). Affective indicators
are related to students’ emotions, such as expressing humor and sharing per-
sonal information. Some examples of interactive indicators include replying
to a discussion thread, asking questions of peers, or quoting others. Cohesive
indicators relate to social functions, such as greetings, using inclusive pro-
nouns (e.g., we, us, our), and addressing the class or a small group (Garrison
et al., 2000). Instructors can create online learning environments that foster
indicators of social presence in a number of ways, such as creating introduction
discussion boards, dividing students into small groups to work collaboratively,
and encouraging peer feedback and support through course assignments,
assessments, and interactions.
Given that social presence is the more difficult presence to cultivate in
online courses (Boettcher & Conrad, 2016; Garrison et al., 2010; Shea &
Bidjerano, 2009; Shin, 2003), the research on social presence is highlighted
below. The following tools or applications have been shown to stimulate
social presence among online language learners: (1) desktop video/audio con-
ferencing (Satar, 2015; Yamada & Akahori, 2007), (2) Instagram (Fornara &
Lomicka, 2019), (3) microblogs (Dunlap & Lowenthal, 2009; Lomicka & Lord,
2012; Lord & Lomicka, 2012), and (4) virtual worlds (Cooke-Plagwitz, 2008;
Peterson, 2011).

Research Findings on Social Presence

Satar (2015) examined whether engaging in desktop video or audio confer-
encing enables learners to build social presence. The participants were Turkish
learners of English as a foreign language and they communicated in pairs via
desktop video conferencing. Satar (2015) focused on the interactive indicators,
 Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching  241

which typically include behaviors such as quoting from their classmates’ mes-
sages, expressing agreement, complimenting or expressing appreciation, and
asking questions. Given that participants could see and hear each other via
desktop conferencing, Satar also examined their non-verbal communication for
evidence of interactive indicators. These non-verbal cues, also known as back-
channels, included head nods, smiles, facial expressions, and/or the raising of an
eyebrow. Satar’s findings demonstrated that there are three powerful ways for
students to build social presence during video conferencing: (1) asking ques-
tions and providing appropriate responses (indicating that the partners were
paying attention to each other), (2) providing verbal and non-verbal cues that
express friendliness and warmth, and (3) having an appropriate response time
with respect to turn taking and silences. Satar asserted that students must believe
that their classmates are involved with and attending to the conversation. This
can be achieved by providing responses that refer back to previous interactions
and by demonstrating non-verbal signals, such as facial expressions and head
nods. Moreover, paralinguistic cues, such as smiling, and verbal cues, such as
sharing humor, enable participants to express warmth and friendliness during
video conferencing. Regarding response time, Satar claimed that students need
to distinguish when silences and slow turns are caused by technical or linguistic
problems and when they indicate an actual unwillingness to communicate.
Satar (2015) set forth some guidelines for teachers to help language learn-
ers build social presence during video conferencing; namely, teachers should
encourage their students “incorporate their feelings, experiences, examples,
and ideas in task completion” and “initiate new topics, ask follow-up ques-
tions, and ... provide quick, and above all, non-verbal backchannels” (p. 498).
She also suggested that teachers give students ample time for “off task” talk so
that they can build rapport and establish social presence. Satar also stressed the
importance of making students aware of potential silences in their interactions
via video conferencing, which can occur due to technical issues or due to the
limited linguistic knowledge of the participants. Students should be advised
not to interpret silences as an unwillingness to communicate, but rather as an
opportunity to help their conversation partner with respect to problems that
they may be experiencing with their technology or language skills.
Similar to Satar’s (2015) study, Fornara and Lomicka (2019) investigated
Intermediate-level university students of French and Spanish and their use of
Instagram to build social presence online. The researchers examined affective
(e.g., students’ emotions), interactive (e.g., replying to peers), and cohesive
(e.g., social functions such as greetings) indicators and quantified them in stu-
dents’ messages and visual representations on Instagram.
242  Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching

They found that for both languages, students mostly displayed affective
and interactive indicators. Examples of their affective indicators included self-­
disclosure, or telling personal information about themselves, and expressions
of emotion, such as the use of exclamation points, emojis, or caps. Interactive
indicators included quoting others, asking questions, or continuing a conver-
sation or thread. Of note, the least common indicators were the cohesive ones,
with learners rarely or never using inclusive pronouns (i.e., we, us, our). In sum-
mary, Fornara and Lomicka (2019) found that students were able to build social
presence online through the use of Instagram in Intermediate-level language
classes. The most important finding of their study was that visual information,
such as pictures and videos, can help learners build social presence online.
Lomicka and Lord (2012) examined the role of Twitter among 13 Intermediate-
level university learners of French. Participants tweeted among themselves and
with 12 university students in France who were studying English. Twitter was
used as a medium for short communications, as messages were limited to
140 characters; furthermore, the messages were directed toward one person,
were privately viewed, or were shared with others via retweeting.
The study participants were asked to tweet twice per week in French and
once per week in English. The researchers examined participants’ tweets for
indicators of social presence, which they classified as affective (e.g., humor,
emotion), interactive (e.g., replies, retweets), and cohesive (e.g., inclusive pro-
nouns, salutations).The researchers found more affective indicators than inter-
active ones. Although participants were not required to reply to others, they
often did so, which indicated that they had built a community of inquiry.
According to Lomicka and Lord (2012), over time, “students became more
interested in talking with each other and sharing opinions, comments, and
information” (p. 56). The researchers concluded that Twitter enabled the par-
ticipants in their study to create a community and to build social presence
(Lomicka & Lord, 2012). The findings of this study indicate that Twitter is an
effective tool for building social presence in an online course.
Peterson (2011) conducted a review of the literature on how social pres-
ence may be facilitated in virtual words, which are defined as “persistent virtual
environments in which people experience others as being there with them and
where they interact with them” (Schroeder, 2008, p. 2). According to Peterson,
the two most popular platforms for virtual worlds are Active Worlds and Second
Life. Unlike chatrooms or other temporary virtual environments, virtual worlds
provide permanent venues for interaction and they typically have a common
theme, such as a specific location or country. A key benefit of using a virtual
world is the multimodal nature of communication, including visual, text, and
 Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching  243

audio-based interactions. Users can create their own personalized avatars, which
are icons or images that represent the user. Some research has shown that learn-
ers become emotionally attached to their avatars and the use of avatars can
strengthen learners’ perceptions of presence (Cooke-Plagwitz, 2008; Lombard
& Ditton, 1997; Schroeder, 2002). After reviewing key studies on the use of vir-
tual worlds for language learning, Peterson (2011) concluded that virtual worlds
increased learners’ sense of their own presence as well as the presence of their
classmates (co-presence). However, the use of Second Life, in particular, led to
feelings of frustration and stress among some students due to the steep learning
curve to master the online platform. Moreover, some students did not perceive
the game-like nature of virtual worlds to be appropriate for formal coursework.
While virtual worlds can be a powerful tool to foster social presence in online
classes, instructors should be aware that they will need to provide ample tech-
nology training for their students if they wish to incorporate them. Therefore,
instructors would need to determine whether they have sufficient time and
technical expertise to employ virtual worlds in their online courses.
Revisiting the question: How can online language instructors facilitate pres-
ence? There are likely numerous online tools and applications that have the
potential to stimulate social presence among learners; however, there has been
scant research on how technology tools and applications can help build social
presence in the context of online language learning. More research is needed
in this area, especially given that social presence can make a significant, positive
impact on students’ experiences in online language courses.The research stud-
ies that were reviewed above indicate that desktop conferencing, Instagram,
microblogs/Twitter, and virtual worlds have the potential to increase social
presence in online language courses. However, instructors should keep in
mind that while virtual words—such as Second Life and Active Worlds—can
foster presence, sufficient training for students and faculty would be necessary
to incorporate them smoothly. Other tools—such as desktop conferencing,
Instagram, and Twitter—may be easier to incorporate into online courses to
help build students’ perceptions of social presence. See Chapters 1 and 2 for
more information on building social presence online.

Research on Learner Connectedness

Closely tied to the constructs of teaching, social, and cognitive presence is the
concept of learner connectedness. According to Liu, Magjuka, Bonk, and Lee
(2007), learner connectedness is the perception that members of an online group
have a shared commitment and that they matter to one another. In other words,
244  Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching

connectedness refers to a sense of virtual community (Blanchard, 2007). A

number of researchers have documented that online learning may lead to feel-
ings of social isolation (Haythornthwaite, Kazmer, Robins, & Shoemaker, 2000;
Kanuka & Jugdev, 2006; Rovai, 2002; Shieh, Gummer & Niess, 2008). In addition,
online students may experience both physical (space and time) and psychological
(emotional) isolation from their peers. Online courses tend to have higher dropout
rates than traditional, brick-and-mortar classes across disciplines (Herbert, 2006;
Heyman, 2010) and some researchers have speculated that the higher attrition
rates in online courses may be due to learners’ feelings of disconnectedness in the
online environment (Angelino, Williams, & Natvig, 2007; Kanuka & Jugdev,
2006). One way to combat feelings of social isolation is to foster students’ percep-
tions of connectedness, which may also decrease attrition in online courses.
Bolliger and Inan (2012) asserted that learners who feel connected to their
peers are more likely to engage with others and to participate in course tasks
and activities; they also claimed that connectedness refers to learners’ perceptions
of belonging, acceptance, and a belief that they have a relationship with at least
one other person in the online course. Furthermore, Bolliger and Inan (2012)
asserted that connectedness is comprised of four measurable domains as follows:
(1) comfort, (2) community, (3) facilitation, and (4) interaction and collabora-
tion. Each of these constructs is measured by Bolliger and Inan’s (2012) Online
Student Connectedness Survey (OSCS), which is described below.

Evaluating Learner Connectedness

The OSCS is a summative evaluation instrument for online courses or programs
and it is comprised of 25 items that are rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The survey items are broken
down as follows: (1) eight items measure comfort, or learners’ feelings of con-
tentment, security, and ease with the learning environment and course tech-
nologies, (2) six items measure community, which refers to students’ emotional
attachments to their peers in the online course, (3) six items measure facilitation,
or learners’ perceptions of the level of teacher presence in the course, and (4) five
items measure interaction and collaboration, which refer to learners’ perceptions
of the depth of their interactions with their instructor and with their peers to
complete course tasks. It should be noted that the OSCS is not intended to be
used as a pre-assessment. Rather, it is a summative assessment that must be deliv-
ered at the end of an online course or program; furthermore, it has been found
to be a valid and reliable instrument (Bolliger & Inan, 2012; Zimmerman &
Nimon, 2017). The OSCS items are listed in Table 5.4.
 Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching  245

Table 5.4  Bolliger & Inan’s (2012) Online Student Connectedness Survey (OSCS)

Subscale Statement
Comfort 1. I feel comfortable in the online learning environment provided by
my program.
2. I feel my instructors have created a safe online environment in
which I can freely express myself.
3. I feel comfortable asking other students in online courses for help.
4. I feel comfortable expressing my opinions and feelings in online
courses.
5. I feel comfortable introducing myself in online courses.
6. If I need to, I will ask for help from my classmates.
7. I have no difficulties with expressing my thoughts in my online
courses.
8. I can effectively communicate in online courses.
Community 1. I have gotten to know some of the faculty members and classmates
well.
2. I feel emotionally attached to other students in my online courses.
3. I can easily make acquaintances in my online courses.
4. I spend a lot of time with my online course peers.
5. My peers have gotten to know me quite well in my online courses.
6. I feel that students in my online courses depend on me.
Facilitation 1. Instructors promote collaboration between students in my online
courses.
2. Instructors integrate collaboration tools (e.g., chat rooms, wikis,
and group areas) into online course activities.
3. My online instructors are responsive to my questions.
4. I receive frequent feedback from my online instructors.
5. My instructors participate in online discussions.
6. In my online courses, instructors promote interaction between
learners.
Interaction and 1. I work with others in my online courses.
Collaboration 2. I relate my work to others’ work in my online courses.
3. I share information with other students in my online courses.
4. I discuss my ideas with other students in my online courses.
5. I collaborate with other students in my online courses.
*Note. The OSCS items listed above were obtained from Bolliger, D. U., & Inan, F. A. (2012). Development and
validation of the Online Student Connectedness Survey (OSCS). International Review of Research in
Open and Distance Learning (IRRODL), 13(3), 41-65.This article by D. U. Bolliger and F. A. Inan has been
reproduced from IRRODL under a Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 CC-BY. It is available here
{http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1171/2206}.

While there has been some research in other disciplines using the OSCS
(Bowers & Kumar, 2015; Croxton, 2015: Ford & Inan, 2013; Zimmerman &
Nimon, 2017); thus far, there has been very little research using this instru-
ment in online language learning contexts. Russell (2018) investigated
learner connectedness among 33 university students who were enrolled in an
Intermediate-level online Spanish course. The instructor created seven peer
support groups with five or six students in each group. Students were required
246  Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching

to engage in biweekly discussions in their native language (English). The peer

support discussion board was intended to provide an outlet for students to dis-
cuss their fears and anxieties related to the online language learning process,
to create a forum where students could share their strategies for successful
online language learning, as well as a venue to help combat students’ false
beliefs about language learning (e.g., the false belief that a language can be
learned while sleeping).The OSCS was delivered at the end of the course and
the results showed that the subscales with the highest mean scores were facili-
tation and comfort, while the subscale the lowest mean score was community.
The mean score for interaction and collaboration was slightly above average.
These results showed that the students perceived the instructor to be present
and highly responsive to their needs; in addition, they felt comfortable with
the course technologies and with the online learning environment (Russell,
2018). The high score for comfort also indicated that students felt at ease
asking their instructor and their peers for help and they also felt comfortable
expressing their opinions and thoughts; conversely, the low score in the area
of community demonstrated that students did not feel an emotional connec-
tion with their peers, nor did they feel that they got to know their peers well
in the course (Russell, 2018). These results indicate that students may have
desired a deeper level of connection and social presence in the online course.
This finding supports the assertions of several scholars who claimed that social
presence may be the most difficult type of presence to stimulate in an online
course or program (Angelino et al., 2007, Boettcher & Conrad, 2016; Shin,
2003). In Russell’s 2018 study, it appears that the peer support discussions may
have stimulated cognitive presence, but they failed to foster social presence, as
the students may have viewed these discussions as another course task rather
than an as opportunity to get to know their peers more deeply. It should be
noted that the sample size in Russell’s study was small; therefore, the results
should be interpreted with caution. Future studies should examine pedagog-
ical interventions using social media tools to determine if students’ perceptions
of community, as measured by the OSCS, are positively impacted. Given the
importance of connectedness in online courses and the negative outcomes—
such as high attrition rates—associated with a lack of social presence, this is a
rich area for future research.
Using the OSCS as a summative evaluation for an online course or program
is an easy way to measure students’ perceptions of connectedness. Because the
OSCS only contains 25 Likert-scale items, it only takes students a few minutes to
complete it. Bolliger and Inan’s (2012) OSCS instrument is available in Table 5.4.
If instructors wish to use the OSCS to measure perceptions of connectedness
 Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching  247

among students in their courses or programs, they simply have to contact the
authors to request permission. Other instruments that are designed to measure
connectedness are the Classroom Community Scale (Rovai, 2002) and the
Community of Inquiry Scale (Arbaugh et al., 2008), which is openly available
for all users. An article that contains the Community of Inquiry Scale is listed
in the suggestions for further reading at the end of this chapter. The OSCS,
the Classroom Community Scale, and the Community of Inquiry Scale all
measure related constructs.
Revisiting the question: What is connectedness and how can online language
educators promote it? In this chapter, the concept of connectedness was
defined as students’ perceptions of a virtual community (Blanchard, 2007) or
the perception that they share a common goal and matter to one another (Liu
et al, 2007). While it is relatively easy to define connectedness; in practice, it
is quite difficult to stimulate in an online course. As was described previously,
the construct of social presence is closely tied to connectedness, and while it is
challenging to promote social presence and connectedness in online courses,
learners’ perceptions of them are likely to make a significant impact on both
attrition rates and learning outcomes. More research is urgently needed in this
area and the OSCS could be a useful tool to measure connectedness in future
studies. Online language instructors would benefit greatly from research that
yields better techniques for stimulating social presence and connectedness in
their courses.

Research on Assessment in Online

Language Education
After designing, developing, and delivering online language instruction, it is
important to understand how to assess language learning outcomes appropri-
ately in the online environment. The key questions that the authors examine in
this chapter include: What types of assessments are effective for online language
teaching and learning and what types of outcomes should be measured?
Assessment is an integral part of all online language courses and programs and
testing is necessary to evaluate mastery of student learning outcomes, which
is typically achieved through formative and summative assessments. Formative
assessments are intended to measure students’ developing knowledge, skills,
and understandings as new learning takes place. These are the frequent small
checks, formal or informal, that teachers do to assess whether their students
understand new concepts.The results of formative assessments enable teachers
to evaluate whether their instruction needs to be modified, if content needs
248  Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching

to be re-taught, or if students are ready to move on to the next concept.

Summative assessments occur at the end of a unit of instruction and measure
how well students have mastered the course learning objectives.

Performance-Based Assessments
In traditional language classrooms, summative assessments are typically paper-
and-pencil tests that measure students’ mastery of grammar, vocabulary, and
cultural content. Most traditional tests contain discrete-point items that focus
on form. Discrete-point assessments are those that focus on one aspect of
language at a time, often via multiple choice, true/false, and fill-in-the-blank
items. According to Adair-Hauck, Glisan, Koda, Swender, and Sandrock (2006),
these types of tests are not able to capture fully the outcomes of standards-based
instruction in which “learners develop the ability to communicate in another
language, gain knowledge and understanding of other cultures, connect with
other disciplines and … participate in multilingual communities at home and
around the world” (p. 360). Similarly, VanPatten, Trego, and Hopkins (2015)
asserted that communicative and proficiency-based instruction is advancing
very slowly because of the washback effect of traditional exams. The wash-
back effect refers to the impact that testing has on teaching. If tests are well
designed, then the washback is positive; however, if tests are poorly designed,
then the washback is negative. VanPatten et al. (2015) asserted that a large
part of the problem with traditional language testing is due to, “instructors
and students seeing traditional testing as a means of evaluating student pro-
gress for the purpose of providing a formal grade. Yet such tests normally do
not reflect the constructs underlying either communication or proficiency”
(p. 660). In other words, language instructors who attempt to engage in com-
municative, standards-based language instruction should also strive to assess
what students can accomplish with the language in meaningful contexts across
the three modes of communication (interpretive, interpersonal, and presenta-
tional). The meaningful context is the communication that takes place within
the classroom (e.g., student-student and student-teacher interaction), within
real-world scenarios that are designed by the teacher and/or the students, or
with native speakers of the language outside of the classroom (e.g., within a
language exchange or on a conversation platform). Assessments that measure
what students can do with language within a meaningful or authentic context
are known as performance-based assessments. These types of assessments are
effective for measuring learning outcomes within standards-based, communi-
cative language courses and programs. However, many language educators are
 Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching  249

often unsure about how to design assessments that measure their students’ per-
formance in the target language and it is often more straightforward and easier
to assess grammatical concepts, vocabulary items, and cultural facts.
Moreover, if language instructors employ a textbook from a commercial
publisher, then the publisher typically provides a testing program for both
pencil-and-paper and online delivery. The authors have reviewed publisher-
created assessments from a wide array of companies and the majority of them
are traditional, discrete-point assessments that focus on vocabulary, grammar,
and cultural facts. While it is easy to make use of publisher-created testing
materials, language instructors need to examine their assessments carefully
to determine whether they fit into a communicative, standards-based cur-
riculum. Grammar-based, discrete-point exams are not only a poor fit for
communicative classrooms, they also have the potential to create a negative
washback on instruction. For example, instructors typically feel pressure to
focus their instruction on grammar so that students can succeed on the grammar-
based tests. Conversely, performance-based assessments are a good fit for
communicative classrooms because students are required to produce goal-
directed language using multiple-skills and modes of communication while
integrating the course content (Liskin-Gasparro, 1996; Wiggins, 1994, 1998).
Liskin-Gasparro (1996) and Wiggins (1998) asserted that performance-based
assessments require learners to respond to prompts or tasks, which can reflect
authentic, real-world challenges; moreover, students are able to create with
language and more than one correct response is possible. Examples of per-
formance-based assessments include presentations, debates, role-plays, and the
creation of portfolios, including digital portfolios—see Chapters 1 and 2 for
more information on using LinguaFolio for digital portfolios. LinguaFolio is an
open-access, e-portfolio tool where language students can create and upload
text, audio, and video content; therefore, this tool is ideal for perfor-
mance-based assessments across the three modes of communication. Moreover,
performance-based assessments, using platforms such as LinguaFolio, allow
students to express their innovation and creativity, engage in critical thinking
and problem-solving, and collaborate and communicate with their peers in
the target language.
When using performance-based assessments, it is of the upmost impor-
tance to ensure that students understand what is expected of them and how
they will be assessed. One way to do this is by using rubrics that describe a
range of performance characteristics and the degree to which learners have
approached, met, or exceeded the standard of performance. Moreover, rubrics
enable instructors to supply feedback for future improvement and they can
250  Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching

even provide clues for students about what a strong performance looks like
(Shrum & Glisan, 2005). Providing examples and models of the expected per-
formance along with clear rubrics demystifies performance-based assessments
for learners (Adair-Hauck et al., 2006).
The ACTFL Performance Descriptors for Language Learners (2015)
describe the targeted outcomes of students’ language performance at the Novice,
Intermediate, and Advanced levels of proficiency across the three modes of
communication.The descriptors are applicable to the standards-based language
instruction that occurs in traditional, flipped, online, and blended learning
environments. They also provide the specific language necessary to assess stu-
dent performance across the following domains: functions, contexts/content,
text type, language control, vocabulary, communication strategies, and cultural
awareness. Functions refer to the various tasks that students can perform in
the language, such as asking or responding to questions, naming, identifying,
narrating, describing, expressing thoughts and preferences, and telling/retelling
a story to name a few. Context describes the circumstances in which learners
can function (e.g., in a classroom, in a department store, in a restaurant) and
content refers to the specific topics that students can both understand and dis-
cuss. Text type refers both to the length (e.g., word, sentence, or discourse level)
as well as the breadth (e.g., authentic texts supported by visual cues, simple
stories, correspondence, reports, or literary texts) of language, while language
control describes learners’ level of accuracy in the target language. Vocabulary
refers to appropriate word choice as well as whether learners have sufficient
breadth of vocabulary for the communicative context. Communication strat-
egies describe how well learners are able to maintain conversations and make
meaning (see Chapter 3 for a review of circumlocution, word coinage, gesture,
and back-channeling cues). Cultural awareness refers to whether the learners’
cultural knowledge is reflected in their language use.
Instructors can select the domains that apply to their particular assessment.
The descriptors would then need to be adjusted up or down to create a rubric
where learners approach, meet, or exceed expectations. For example, the
descriptor for presentational speaking or writing at the Novice level under the
domain “vocabulary” is the following:
Produces a number of high frequency words and formulaic expressions;
able to use a limited variety of vocabulary on familiar topics
(ACTFL, 2015).
The language listed above describes “target-level performance” (or meets
expectations) for Novice learners in presentational speaking or writing
 Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching  251

regarding learners’ use of vocabulary. The following is an example of how the

descriptor could be modified to describe the performance of a learner who
approaches expectations:

Produces some high frequency words and at least one formulaic expres-
sion; able to use a limited variety of vocabulary on highly familiar topics.

Similarly, the descriptor could be adjusted up to describe the performance of

a learner who exceeds expectations:

Produces a large number of high frequency words and formulaic

expressions; able to use a variety of vocabulary on familiar topics and on
topics of personal interest.

Perhaps the most valuable aspect of the ACTFL Performance Descriptors

for Language Learners (ACTFL, 2015) is that they help language educators
understand what target-level performance should look like at three levels of
proficiency—Novice, Intermediate, and Advanced—across the three modes
of communication. The descriptors were designed to work hand-in-
hand with the ACTFL World-Readiness Standards for Learning Languages
(National Standards Collaborative Board, 2015); therefore, using the ACTFL
Performance Descriptors (ACTFL, 2015) to create assessment rubrics should
help ensure that instructors are engaging in standards-based language instruc-
tion. Moreover, if instructors use the backward design model that was described
in Chapter 1, then they would create their summative assessment rubrics using
the ACTFL Performance Descriptors after selecting their learning objectives,
which will facilitate lesson alignment between the standards, objectives, and
assessments.
For those teaching English as a second or foreign language, there are
WIDA (2018a, 2018b) Performance Definitions for both listening/reading
and speaking/writing. These definitions are tied to the WIDA (2012) ELD
standards and they provide a description of the language acquisition process
from Level 1 (Entering) though Level 6 (Reaching) in the areas of linguistic
complexity, language forms and conventions, and vocabulary usage. These
definitions can be used to create rubrics for assessing students’ language
production across the four skills (reading, writing, listening, and speak-
ing). Links for the ACTFL Performance Descriptors for Language Learners
(ACTFL, 2015) and the WIDA (2018a, 2018b) Performance Definitions are
available in the eResources for this book.
252  Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching

The Integrated Performance Assessment (IPA)

The sections above explained why performance-based assessments are supe-
rior to discrete-point assessments as well as how to create rubrics for perfor-
mance-based assessments that are tied to professional standards. This section
of the chapter explores the integrated performance assessment (IPA), which is
the gold standard of performance-based assessments for language classrooms.
The IPA is an assessment template that was designed by ACTFL with federal
grant funding. The purpose of the IPA is to measure learners’ attainment
of the ACTFL World-Readiness Standards (National Standards Collaborative
Board, 2015) while connecting language instruction with assessments (Adair-
Hauck et al., 2006). In other words, the IPA is a performance-based assessment
template that integrates students’ language learning experiences in the class-
room with the assessment of their knowledge, skills, and understandings across
three modes of communication. Therefore, IPAs are well suited to communi-
cative language classrooms and proficiency-based language programs. Adair-
Hauck, Glisan, & Troyan (2015) asserted that the IPA is a multi-task assessment
that incorporates three tasks, with each task focusing on one of the modes of
communication (interpretive, interpersonal, and presentational). Moreover, all
of the tasks are interrelated on a common theme and the tasks build upon
each other. Several prominent scholars in the field of world language educa-
tion have claimed that the IPA design is consistent with how students naturally
acquire and use language both in the classroom and in the real world (Glisan,
Adair-Hauck, Koda, Sandrock, & Swender, 2003).
The IPA takes a cyclical approach to assessing student learning and it has
three distinct phases:

●● Phase I is the Interpretive Communication Phase. In this phase, learners

read or listen to an authentic text, such as a newspaper article or a radio
broadcast. After reading or listening, the students answer interpretive ques-
tions that assess their comprehension. To conclude Phase I, the teacher
provides students with specific feedback regarding how well they did as
well as guidance regarding how they may be able to improve in the future.
●● Phase II is the Interpersonal Phase. In this phase, students engage in inter-
personal communication that is related to a topic from an authentic text
or listening passage from Phase I. It is recommended that Phase II be
audio or video recorded. To conclude Phase II, the teacher provides spe-
cific feedback and guidance regarding what was done well and what needs
to be improved.
 Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching  253

●● In Phase III, students present their opinions, ideas, and/or research.

Students’ presentations may take many forms, such as skits, speeches, dra-
mas, essays, brochures, and/or the creation of websites to name a few
(Glisan et al., 2003; Glisan, Uribe, & Adair-Hauck, 2007).

IPAs have been shown to have a positive washback on teaching and learning
(Adair-Hauck et al., 2006). They also encourage teachers to provide detailed
feedback; namely, feedback that explains to students what they did well, what
still needs improvement, and what steps they should take to advance their
language learning. According to Adair-Hauck and Troyan (2013), simply
providing students with a letter grade and a comment such as “well done”
are insufficient to help language learners improve their performance (p. 24).
Moreover, several studies found that students do not receive sufficient feed-
back regarding their performance in the target language (Muñoz & Álvarez,
2010; Shohamy, 1992; Shohamy, Donesta-Schmidt, & Ferman, 1996; Wall &
Anderson, 1993). Given that the provision of detailed feedback is a key com-
ponent of each of the three phases of the IPA, language teachers’ practices
related to the provision of feedback as well as students’ understandings of their
performance are likely to improve with the use of this assessment template.
Moreover, research at the elementary (Davin, Troyan, Donato, & Hellman,
2011), secondary (Kissau & Adams, 2016), and postsecondary (Glisan et al.,
2007; Zapata, 2016) levels indicate that the implementation of IPAs into
the second language curriculum has many benefits, such as the provision of
detailed descriptions of student performance, the promotion of standards-based
language instruction, and the integration of teaching, learning, and assessment.
Zapata (2016) also found that postsecondary students were able to make con-
nections between the instruction that they received prior to the IPA and what
they learned while using the IPA as an assessment tool.
Davin et al. (2011) asserted that implementing the IPA also has the poten-
tial to identify the strengths and weaknesses of language courses and programs;
the researchers focused on elementary-level language learners and the findings
indicated that students performed the least well on the interpretive phase of
the IPA. Interestingly, Glisan et al. (2007) focused on postsecondary students
and they had the same findings: students’ weakest performance was in the
interpretive mode. Davin et al. asserted that students’ lack of familiarity with
the vocabulary and their lack of exposure to authentic audio, video, and text-
based materials may have resulted in lower scores on the interpretive tasks
(Davin et al., 2011). Given these results, language educators should strive to
include more spoken and written texts into their daily instructional activities.
254  Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching

See Chapter 4 for open-access authentic resources that can be used to engage
students in the interpretive mode.
In addition, research studies conducted by Davin et al. (2011) and Kissau
and Adams (2016) indicate that teachers may not address each of the three
modes of communication equally. Kissau and Adams (2016) found that teach-
ers placed greater emphasis on presentational writing and interpretive reading
and paid less attention to presentational speaking, interpersonal speaking,
and interpretive listening. The researchers noted that there was a disconnect
between teachers’ beliefs and their practices because their participants (who
were language teachers) expressed a belief that “developing interpretive lis-
tening and interpersonal modes of communication should be the focus of
introductory language classrooms” and that “presentational writing was the
most challenging skill and one that should be introduced later” (Kissau &
Adams, 2016, p. 119). However, in practice, the researchers found that one-
third to one-half of all assessments in the introductory language classes focused
exclusively on presentational writing. This finding indicates that language
educators who teach Novice-level learners should strive to teach and assess
more in the interpretive and interpersonal modes of communication and less
in the presentational writing mode.
Other issues have emerged with respect to implementing the IPA into the
world language curriculum, including locating authentic texts that are age
appropriate for elementary- and secondary-level students (Adair-Hauck et al,
2006; Kissau & Adams, 2016) and selecting topics and materials that interest
and motivate postsecondary students (Martel & Bailey, 2016). Moreover,
Martel and Bailey (2016) found that some postsecondary instructors had neg-
ative perceptions with respect to implementing IPAs into the curriculum,
especially regarding the rubrics that were used in the IPAs for their study.
Moreover, some participants expressed the need for more sophisticated IPAs
that honor adult learners’ intellectual capacities (Martel & Bailey, 2016). Given
these findings, university instructors should use caution with IPAs that were
developed for secondary-level classrooms, as they may not be appropriate for
postsecondary students. Martel and Bailey also point out that in order for IPAs
to become implemented widely across postsecondary language courses and
programs, a wide array of IPAs need to be developed and openly shared.
Revisiting the question: What types of assessments are effective for online
language teaching and learning? The research above indicates that perfor-
mance-based assessments are appropriate for communicative language instruction,
whether it is delivered in traditional, blended, flipped, or online environments.
While there are many types of performance-based assessments from which to
 Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching  255

choose, such as role-plays, skits, and dialogues, the IPA is a performance-based

assessment that provides a research-based approach to assessing learning out-
comes in language courses across the three modes of communication. IPAs
are also able to connect classroom activities and practices with assessment of
student learning; in addition, they have a positive washback on instruction and
they can help promote standards-based language instruction (Adair-Hauck
et al., 2006). While it may be time consuming to design IPAs, the Center for
Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (known as CARLA) has pub-
lished some open-access IPAs that teachers may employ for both commonly
and less commonly taught languages. However, for students to be successful
on IPAs, language educators should strive to incorporate more interpretive
listening and reading activities, as the research studies reviewed above found
this to be the weakest area among language students of every age and profi-
ciency level.
Revisiting the question: What types of outcomes should be measured?
Language educators should reject discrete-point exams that focus on form
in favor of assessing students’ performance in the interpretive, interpersonal,
and presentational modes of communication. Assessing students’ knowledge
of grammatical forms, structures, and vocabulary does not ensure that they
can actually use the language to communicate. In order to assess communica-
tion within a meaningful cultural context, instructors need to assess students’
ability to comprehend the authentic texts that they hear or read, their ability
to engage in person-to-person communication in real time, and their ability
to present topics or ideas in the spoken and written modalities.
Furthermore, language instructors should strive to strike a balance between
assessing each of the three modes of communication, but they should take
students’ proficiency level into account when doing so. The research that was
reviewed above suggests that teachers tend to focus on assessing presentational
writing, even at the Novice level. Language instructors should place greater
emphasis on assessing interpretive listening and interpretive reading among
Novice language learners, while emphasizing the assessment of presentational
writing among more advanced learners. However, Novice learners should still
engage in all three modes of communication during lesson tasks and activities,
but it may be more helpful to focus on presentational speaking—rather than
on presentational writing—for their assessments until they gain more experi-
ence with the language.
The research reviewed above also indicates that students are not receiving
enough practice in the interpretive mode with authentic materials. Instructors
should strive to include ample instructional activities that focus on the
256  Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching

interpretive mode using authentic materials and resources, which will pro-
vide students with sufficient practice prior to assessing their performance on
interpretive listening and reading tasks. Moreover, instructors can ensure that
they are assessing each of the three modes by engaging in backward design
(See Chapter 1) in which the assessments are created first, followed by the
instructional tasks and activities. By creating an equal balance of assessments
across three modes of communication, there should be a positive washback on
instruction. Finally, the LinguaFolio e-portfolio tool enables online language
learners to engage in performance-based assessments, such as IPAs, in a dig-
ital environment. The link to this online assessment resource, which is made
available through the Center for Applied Second Language Studies (known as
CASLS) at the University of Oregon in partnership with NCSSFL, is available
as an eResource.

Conclusion
A wide array of research was reviewed in this chapter on themes such as student
and teacher satisfaction, class size, language anxiety, best practices, social pres-
ence, learner connectedness, and assessment. While it was beyond the scope of
this chapter to include all of the research topics that are available on language
learning in blended, flipped, and online learning environments, the authors
chose the topics that they felt were the most relevant for the implementation
of quality instruction in these environments.The studies that were presented in
this chapter and their implications can help online language instructors create
more meaningful, effective, and enjoyable learning experiences for their stu-
dents and for themselves. Furthermore, recommendations from research were
presented for stimulating social presence and learner connectedness, which
may help decrease attrition rates in online language classes. Implementing the
research findings on best practices also has the potential to decrease attrition
rates and to ensure a smooth delivery of instruction. Moreover, the research
that was reviewed in this chapter may be useful for making administrative
decisions such as setting course caps and determining who is qualified to teach
in online environments, where knowledge of online language pedagogy is
of paramount importance. Finally, research-based assessment techniques were
presented in this chapter. By creating and implementing performance-based
assessments across the three modes of communication, there will be a positive
washback on instruction because these assessments will foster the use of com-
municative approaches among language instructors in online, blended, and
flipped learning environments.
 Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching  257

Key Takeaways
●● Online language education can be satisfying for both instructors and stu-
dents provided that they have appropriate institutional support in terms
of technology, infrastructure, and resources and that instructors have aca-
demic freedom to design courses using their unique knowledge and
expertise in online language pedagogy (Russell & Curtis, 2013).
●● Due to the high level of interaction that is needed, online language class
sizes should be as small as traditional language class sizes. World language
classes should not exceed 15 students, regardless of delivery mode
(ACTFL, 2010). While this may not be possible in every instructional
context, online language educators should advocate for smaller class sizes
and they may do so using the research that was presented in this chapter.
●● Online language instructors should be aware that their Novice-level stu-
dents have equally high levels of foreign language anxiety as their counter-
parts in face-to-face language courses; however, foreign language anxiety
tends to decrease among Intermediate- and Advanced-level learners in the
online environment, while remaining equally high across all levels in the
traditional, face-to-face environment (Pichette, 2009).
●● Online instructors should attempt to include one or two new best practices
into their courses with each subsequent iteration after the initial develop-
ment. They should continually evaluate their course design, development,
and delivery and strive for continuous improvement to make their courses
more effective, efficient, and enjoyable for both the students and the instructor.
●● Social presence is the most difficult presence to foster in the online language
learning environment (Boettcher & Conrad, 2016; Garrison et al., 2010; Shea
& Bidjerano, 2009; Shin, 2003) and social media tools should be explored to
determine if they are able to increase students’ perceptions of social presence and
connectedness, which can be measured by the OSCS (Bolliger & Inan, 2012).
●● Online language instructors should reject discrete-point exams that focus
on form in favor of performance-based assessments such as the IPA (Adair-
Hauck et al., 2006; VanPatten et al., 2015).This practice will have a positive
washback effect on instruction.

Discussion Questions
1. Have you ever taken an online course? If so, was it a satisfying experi-
ence? Why (not)? Which aspects of the online course did you find enjoy-
able and which did you find to be less so? The authors recommend that
258  Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching

everyone who plans to teach an online course should first take a course as
an online student. If you have not taken an online course, would you con-
sider doing so? What do you think you would learn from being an online
student that could be translated into your online teaching?
2. What is the course cap for language classes at your institution? Do you
find this number to be reasonable? If necessary, what could you do to
advocate for smaller language class sizes at your institution or in your
district, state, or region?
3. Which of the best practices would you incorporate into your online
classes? Why did you select them? Do you think it is necessary to incor-
porate all of the best practices into your online course design for it to be
successful? Are there any best practices that you disagree with; and if so,
why do you disagree with them?
4. Have you attempted to use any social media tools to facilitate social pres-
ence in your online courses? If so, did you measure their effectiveness?
Which social media tools do you think would foster your students’ per-
ceptions of connectedness? Why do you think that social presence is the
most difficult presence to stimulate among online learners across discip-
lines? Would you be interested in using the OSCS, or another instrument,
to measure connectedness in your online courses?
5. Do you use discrete point, focus-on-form tests? After reading this chapter,
have you changed your opinion regarding the effectiveness of these types
of tests? Have you used performance-based assessments in your traditional
or online classes? If so, how effective did you perceive them to be? Have
you attempted to assess language learning with an IPA? If not, would you
consider implementing IPAs in your classes? Do you think it would be
more or less difficult to implement IPAs with online students compared
to traditional language students?

Suggestions for Further Reading

Assessment:
Adair-Hauck, B., Glisan, E. W., & Troyan, F. J. (2015). Implementing integrated
performance assessment. Fairfax,VA:The American Council on the Teaching
of Foreign Languages.
Link, S., & Li, J. (Eds). (2018). Assessment across online language education. Sheffield,
UK: Equinox. CALICO Series: Advances in CALL Research and Practice.
Sandrock, P. (2015). The keys to assessing language performance. Fairfax,VA:The
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.
 Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching  259

Best Practices:
Boettcher, J., & Conrad, R. M. (2016). The online teaching survival guide (2nd):
Simple and practical pedagogical tips. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Don, M. R. (2005). An investigation of the fundamental characteristics in
quality online Spanish instruction. CALICO Journal, 22(2), 285–306.

Social Presence and Connectedness:

Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison, D.R., Ice, P.,
Richardson, J., & Swan, K.P. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry
instrument: Testing a measure of the community of inquiry framework
using a multi-institutional sample. The Internet and Higher Education,
11(3–4), 133–136.
Bolliger, D. U., & Inan, F. A. (2012). Development and validation of the
Online Student Connectedness Survey (OSCS). International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(3), 41–65.
Rovai, A. P. (2002). Development of an instrument to measure classroom
community. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(3), 197–211.

References
Adair-Hauck, B., Glisan, E. W., Koda, K, Swender, E. B., & Sandrock, P. (2006).
The integrated performance assessment (IPA): Connecting assessment
to instruction and learning. Foreign Language Annals, 39(3), 359–382. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2006.tb02894.x
Adair-Hauck, B., Glisan, E.W., & Troyan, F. J. (2015). Implementing integrated per-
formance assessment. Alexandria,VA: The American Council on the Teaching
of Foreign Languages.
Adair-Hauck, B., & Troyan, F. J. (2013). A descriptive and co-constructive
approach to integrated performance assessment feedback. Foreign Language
Annals, 46(1), 23–44. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12017
Alatis, J. (1992). State university system of Florida foreign language and linguistics program
review. (Report No. FL020250). Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University.
Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., Poulin, R., & Straut, T. T. (2016). Online report card:
Tracking online education in the United States (Babson Survey Research Group
Report), pp. 1–57. Retrieved from http://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/
onlinereportcard.pdf
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). (2010).
ACTFL board approved position statements: Maximum class size. Retrieved from
https://www.actfl.org/advocacy/position-statements/maximum-class-size
260  Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). (2012).

ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Retrieved from https://www.actfl.org/resources/
actfl-proficiency-guidelines-2012
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL). (2015).
Performance descriptors for language learners (2nd ed.). Retrieved from https://
cms.azed.gov/home/GetDocumentFile?id=5748a47daadebe04c0b66e64
Angelino, L. M.,Williams, F. K., & Natvig, D. (2007). Strategies to engage online
students and reduce attrition rates. Journal of Educators Online, 4(2), 1–14.
Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Diaz, S. R., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P.,
Richardson, J., & Swan, K.P. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry
instrument: Testing a measure of the community of inquiry framework
using a multi-institutional sample. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3–4),
133–136. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.003
Association of Departments of Foreign Languages (ADFL) (2009). ADFL
guidelines for class size and workload for college and university teachers of
foreign languages. ADFL Bulletin, 40(2–3), 92.
Blake, R., Wilson, N. L., Cetto, M., & Pardo-Ballester, C. (2008). Measuring
oral proficiency in distance, face-to-face, and blended classrooms. Language
Learning & Technology, 12(3), 114–127.
Blanchard, A. L. (2007). Developing a sense of virtual community measure.
Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 10(6), 827–830. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2007.9946
Boettcher, J., & Conrad, R. M. (2016). The online teaching survival guide (2nd):
Simple and practical pedagogical tips. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bolliger, D. U., & Inan, F. A. (2012). Development and validation of the Online
Student Connectedness Survey (OSCS). International Review of Research in
Open and Distance Learning, 13(3), 41–65. doi: https://doi.org/10.19173/
irrodl.v13i3.1171
Bowers, J., & Kumar, P. (2015). Students’ perceptions of teaching and social
presence: A comparative analysis of face-to-face and online learning envir-
onments. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies,
10(1), 27–44. doi: 10.4018/ijwltt.2015010103
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence.
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Chenoweth, N. A., & Murday, K. (2003). Measuring student learning in an
online French course. CALICO Journal, 20(2), 285–314.
Chenoweth, N. A., Ushida, E., & Murday, K. (2006). Student learning in hybrid
French and Spanish Courses: An overview of language online. CALICO
Journal, 24(1), 115–145.
 Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching  261

Cooke-Plagwitz, J. (2008). New directions in CALL: An objective introduc-

tion to Second Life. CALICO Journal, 25(3), 547–557.
Council of Europe. (2011). Common European framework of reference for languages:
Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Croxton, R. (2015). Professional identity development among graduate library
and information studies online learners: A mixed methods study. Journal of
Community and Junior College Libraries, 21(3–4), 125–141.
Davin, K., Troyan, F. J., Donato, R., & Hellman, A. (2011). Research on the
integrated performance assessment in an early foreign language learning
program. Foreign Language Annals, 44(4), 605–625.
Don, M. R. (2005). An investigation of the fundamental characteristics in
quality online Spanish instruction. CALICO Journal, 22(2), 285–306.
Dunlap, J. C., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2009). Tweeting the night away: Using
Twitter to enhance social presence. Journal of Information Systems Education,
202, 129–135.
Ford, S., & Inan, F. (2013). Students’ perceived feelings of connectedness in online
community college mathematics courses. Proceedings of the international con-
ference of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education. Chesapeake,
VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Fornara, F., & Lomicka, L. (2019). Using visual social media in language learning
to investigate the role of social presence. CALICO Journal, 36(3), 184–203.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-
based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The
Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 1–19.
Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring causal
relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student per-
ceptions of the community of inquiry framework. The Internet and Higher
Education, 13(1–2), 31–36.
Glisan, E. W., Adair-Hauck, B., Koda, K., Sandrock, P., & Swender, E. (2003).
ACTFL integrated performance assessment.Yonkers, NY: American Council on
the Teaching of Foreign Languages.
Glisan, E.W., Uribe, D., & Adair-Hauck, B. (2007). Research on integrated perfor-
mance assessment at the post-secondary level: Student performance across the
modes of communication. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(1), 39–68.
Goertler, S. (2011). Blended and open/online learning: Adapting to a chan-
ging world of foreign language teaching. In N. Arnold, & L. Ducate (Eds.),
Present and future promises of CALL: From theory and research to new directions
in language teaching (pp. 471–502). San Marcos, TX: CALICO.
262  Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching

Harker, M., & Koutsantoni, D. (2005). Can it be as effective? Distance versus

blended learning in a web-based EAP programme. ReCALL, 17(2),
197–216. doi: 10.1017/S095834400500042X
Haythornthwaite, C., Kazmer, M. M., Robins, J., & Shoemaker, S. (2000).
Community development among distance learners: Temporal and techno-
logical dimensions. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6(1), 0. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2000.tb00114.x
Herbert, M. (2006). Staying the course: A study in online student satisfaction
and retention. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 9(4), 0.
Heyman, E. (2010). Overcoming student retention issues in higher educa-
tion online programs. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 13(4), 0.
Retrieved from https://www.westga.edu/∼distance/ojdla/winter134/
heyman134.html
Horne, K. M. (1970). Optimum class size for intensive language instruction.
The Modern Language Journal, 54(3), 189–195.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom
anxiety. Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 124–132.
Kanuka, H., & Jugdev, K. (2006). Distance education MBA students: An inves-
tigation into the use of an orientation course to address academic and social
integration issues. Open Learning, 21(2), 153–166.
Kissau, S., & Adams, M. J. (2016). Instructional decision making and IPAs:
Assessing the modes of communication. Foreign Language Annals, 49(1),
105–123. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12184
Krashen, S. (1980). The input hypothesis. In J. Alatis (Ed.), Current issues in bilin-
gual education (pp. 175–183). Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning.
Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford,
UK: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York, NY:
Longman.
Lafford, B. (2006). The effects of study abroad vs. classroom contexts on
Spanish SLA: Old assumptions, new insights and future research directions.
In C. A. Klee & T. L. Face (Eds), Selected proceedings of the 7th conference on
the acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as first and second languages (pp. 1–25).
Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.
Liskin-Gasparro, J. E. (1996). Assessment: From content standards to student
performance. In R. C. Lafayette (Ed.), National standards: A catalyst for reform,
 Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching  263

(pp. 169–196). Lincolnwood, IL: NTC/Contemporary. (ACTFL Foreign

Language Education Series)
Liu, X., Magjuka, R. J., Bonk, C. J., & Lee, S. (2007). Does sense of community
matter? An examination of participants’ perceptions of building learning com-
munities in online courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(1), 9–24.
Lombard, M., & Ditton,T. B. (1997). At the heart of it all: The concept of pres-
ence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(2), 0–0. doi: https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00072.x
Lomicka, L., & Lord, G. (2012). A tale of tweets: Analyzing microblogging
among language learners. System, 40, 48–63. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.system.2011.11.001
Long, M. H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. Gass &
C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 377–393). Rowley,
MA: Newbury House.
Long, M. H. (1996).The role of the linguistic environment in second language
acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language
acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Lord, G., & Lomicka, L. (2014). Twitter as a tool to promote community
among language teachers. JTATE, 22(2), 187–212.
Martel, J., & Bailey, K. (2016). Exploring the trajectory of an educational inno-
vation: Instructors’ attitudes toward IPA implementation in a postsecondary
intensive summer language program. Foreign Language Annals, 49(3),
530–543. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12210
Moneypenny, D. B., & Aldrich, R. (2016). Online and face-to-face language
learning: A comparative analysis of oral proficiency in introductory Spanish.
Journal of Educators Online, 13(2), 105–133.
Morgan, L. Z. (2000). Class size and second language instruction at the
post-secondary level: A survey of the literature and a plea for further
research. Italica, 77(4), 449–472.
Muñoz, A. P., & Álvarez, M. E. (2010). Washback of an oral assessment system
in the EFL classroom. Language Testing, 27, 33–49.
Murphy-Judy, K., & Johnshoy, M. (2017). Who’s teaching which languages
online? A report based on national surveys. The IALLT Journal, 47(1),
137–167.
National Council of State Supervisors for Languages, & American Council on
the Teaching of Foreign Languages (NCSSFL-ACTFL). (2017). NCSSFL-
ACTFL can-do statements. Retrieved from https://www.actfl.org/resources/
ncssfl-actfl-can-do-statements
264  Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching

National Education Association. (2008). Class size reduction: A proven reform

strategy. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/PB08_ClassSize08
.pdf
National Standards Collaborative Board. (2015). World-readiness standards for
learning languages (4th ed.). Alexandria,VA: Author.
North, B. (2006, March). The common European framework of reference:
Development, theoretical and practical issues. Paper presented at the symposium,
A new direction in foreign language education: The potential of the common European
framework of reference for languages. Japan: Osaka University of Foreign Studies.
Orellana, A. (2006). Class size and interaction in online courses. The Quarterly
Review of Distance Education, 7(3), 229–248.
Peterson, M. (2011).Towards a research agenda for the use of three-dimensional
virtual words in language learning. CALICO Journal, 29(1), 67–80.
Pichette, F. (2009). Second language anxiety and distance language learning.
Foreign Language Annals, 42(1), 77–93.
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social
presence in asynchronous, text-based computer conferencing. Journal of
Distance Education, 14(3), 50–71.
Rovai, A. P. (2002). Development of an instrument to measure classroom com-
munity. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(3), 197–211.
Russell, V. (2016, May). Promoting online language learners’ perceptions of
connectedness through pedagogical innovations. Paper presented at the
Computer assisted language instruction consortium (CALICO) conference. East
Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
Russell,V. (2018). Assessing the effect of pedagogical interventions on success
rates and on students’ perceptions of connectedness online. In S. Link &
J. Li (Eds.), Assessment across online language education (pp. 49–70). Sheffield,
UK: Equinox. (CALICO Series: Advances in CALL Research and Practice.)
Russell, V., & Curtis, W. (2013). Comparing a large- and small-scale online
language class: An examination of teacher and learner perceptions. The
Internet and Higher Education, 6, 1–13.
Satar, H. M. (2015). Sustaining multimodal language learner interactions
online. CALICO Journal, 32(3), 480–507. doi: 10.1558/cj.v32i3.26508
Seaman, J. E., Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade increase:Tracking distance
education in the United States (Babson survey research group report),
pp. 1–45. Retrieved from http://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/
gradeincrease.pdf
Schroeder, R. (2002). Social interaction in virtual environments: Key issues,
common themes, and a framework for research. In R. Schroeder (Ed.),
 Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching  265

The social life of avatars: Presence and interaction in shared virtual environments
(pp. 1–18). London, UK: Springer-Verlag.
Schroeder, R. (2008). Defining virtual worlds and virtual environments. Journal
of Virtual Worlds Research, 1(1), 2–3.
Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2009). Cognitive presence and online learner
engagement: A cluster analysis of the community of inquiry framework.
Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21(3), 199–217. doi: 10.1007/
s12528-009-9024-5
Shieh, R. S., Gummer, E., & Niess, M. (2008). Perspectives of the instructor
and the students. TechTrends, 52(6), 61–68.
Shin, N. (2003). Transactional presence as a critical predictor of success in
distance learning. Distance Education, 24(1), 69–86.
Shohamy, E. (1992). Beyond proficiency testing: A diagnostic feedback testing
model for assessing foreign language learning. Modern Language Journal, 76,
513–521.
Shohamy, E., Donitsa-Schmidt, S., & Ferman, I. (1996). Test impact revisited:
Washback effect over time. Language Testing, 13, 298–317.
Shrum, J. L., & Glisan, E. W. (2005). Teacher’s handbook: Contextualized language
instruction (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Thomson Heinle.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehen-
sible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass, & C.
Madden (Eds.), Input and second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley,
MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t
enough. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158–164.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning.
In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics:
Studies in honour of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty,
& J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition
(pp. 85–113). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Taft, S. H., Kesten, K., El-Banna, M. M. (2019). One size does not fit all: Toward
an evidence-based framework for determining online course enrollment sizes
in higher education. Online Learning, 23(3), 188–233. doi: 10.24059/olj
.v23i3.1534
U.S. Department of State Foreign Service Institute. (n. d.). Language lean-
ing timelines. Retrieved from https://www.state.gov/foreign-language-
training/
266  Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching

Ushida, E. (2005). The role of students’ attitudes and motivation in second

language learning in online language courses. CALICO Journal, 23(1),
49–78.
VanPatten, B., Trego, D., & Hopkins, W. P. (2015). In-class vs. online testing in
university-level language courses: A research report. Foreign Language Annals,
48(4), 659–668. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12160
Vorobel, O., & Kim, D. (2012). Language teaching at a distance: An overview
of research. CALICO Journal, 29(3), 548–562.
Wall, D., & Alderson, J. C. (1993). Examining washback:The Sri Lankan impact
study. Language Testing, 10, 41–69.
Wiggins, G. (1994). Toward more authentic assessment of language perfor-
mances. In C. Hancock (Ed.), Teaching, testing, and assessment: Making the
connection (pp. 69–85). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Co.
Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment. San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass.
World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA). (2012). Amplification
of the English language development standards kindergarten–grade 12. Retrieved
from https://wida.wisc.edu/sites/default/files/resource/2012-ELD-Stan-
dards.pdf
World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA). (2016). K-12 can
do descriptors, key uses edition. Retrieved from https://wida.wisc.edu/teach/
can-do/descriptors
World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA). (2018a). Performance
definitions: Listening and reading grades K-12. Retrieved from https://wida.
wisc.edu/sites/default/files/resource/Performance-Definitions-Receptive-
Domains.pdf
World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA). (2018b). Performance
definitions: Speaking and writing grades K-12. Retrieved from https://wida.wisc.
edu/sites/default/files/resource/Performance-Definitions-Expressive-
Domains.pdf
Yamada, M., & Akahori, K. (2007). Social presence in synchronous CMC-
based language learning: How does it affect the productive performance and
consciousness of learning objectives? Computer Assisted Language Learning,
20(1), 37–65. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588220601118503
Yi, H. (2008).The effect of class size reduction on foreign language learning: A
case study. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(6), 1089–1108.
Young, D. J. (2008). An empirical investigation of the effects of blended learning
on student outcomes in a redesigned intensive Spanish course. CALICO
Journal, 26(1), 160–181.
 Relevant Research: Online Language Teaching  267

Zapata, G. C. (2016). University students’ perceptions of Integrated Performance

Assessments and the connection between classroom learning and assess-
ment. Foreign Language Annals, 49(1), 93–104. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/
flan.12176
Zimmerman, T. D., & Nimon, K. (2017). The Online Student Connectedness
Survey: Evidence of initial construct validity. The International Review
of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(3). doi: https://doi
.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i3.2484
Conclusion
Introduction
In this book, the authors set out to break down the process of designing, devel-
oping, and delivering highly effective language courses for online, blended,
and flipped learning environments. They also presented valuable resources
for online professional development and they pointed readers to a multitude
of open educational digital resources that—in most cases—can be down-
loaded, copied, and redistributed without infringing on copyright laws. The
authors also reviewed key strands of research that have implications for online
course delivery. Moreover, many practical tips and suggestions are interwoven
throughout the book for online course development and delivery. Chapter 1
explained the instructional design process in detail as well as the needs
analysis that must precede it. Chapter 2 focused on how to develop online
courses using technology tools and applications. It is important to remember
that the authors did not advocate the use of any particular tool or application,
as these will continue to change and evolve over time; rather, they emphasized
the importance of understanding the sound instructional design principles
that were presented in Chapters 1 and 2. As technology changes and new
tools emerge, language educators who understand the design principles that
underpin quality online course development and delivery will be able to adapt
new tools and applications to meet the needs of their courses and students.
In Chapter 3, the authors explained the tenets of communicative language
teaching and provided a number of strategies (with examples) for teaching

268
 Conclusion  269

communicatively online. This chapter also emphasized the importance of

using professional standards and building online lessons based upon what
students can actually do at their given proficiency level. Examples of online
activities that foster interpretive, interpersonal, and presentational communi-
cation within a meaningful cultural context were also presented in Chapter 3.
Chapter 4 focused on online professional development and open educational
resources. The authors also provided information regarding how to connect
with a community of online language educators. Connecting with others who
teach language online and/or entering into a mentor/mentee relationship
are powerful ways to engage in professional development. In Chapter 5, the
authors presented research findings on online language teaching and their
pedagogical implications. They also gave clear examples of how research can
be incorporated into practice. In addition, Chapter 5 included the research on
assessment and assessment strategies for effectively measuring learning out-
comes in standards-based, communicative language courses. The authors hope
that those who read this book will come away with a solid understanding of
basic online language course design as well as how to implement an effective,
engaging, and efficient online, blended, or flipped language course or program.
Those who deliver instruction online need to be ready to meet the chal-
lenges of rapidly changing technologies and instructional contexts. Therefore,
the authors suggest that they participate in regular technology training sessions,
attend professional development activities that focus on online language ped-
agogy (e.g., conferences, workshops, webinars), and they should also engage in
communities of practice—either at their institutions, online, or both—where
they can connect with others who are using educational technologies to teach
online, blended, or flipped language classes. Having opportunities to share and
interact with other practitioners who deliver instruction online is of para-
mount importance in our field, especially if the engagement is with those who
teach the same language in similar contexts and with learners at similar levels.
As professional online language educators, our best resource is each other. At
conferences, workshops, and webinars, it is possible to see the creative ways
that our peers are using new technologies to engage learners. Moreover, these
types of presentations often provide tips to avoid problems and pitfalls when
implementing a new technology tool or application.
Successful online language educators must be willing to continually learn
as well as to experiment with new technologies. Similar to the effort that it
takes to keep up one’s language skills, it takes equal effort to stay on top of the
latest technologies.When the authors first started teaching language over thirty
years ago, the Internet did not exist and classroom technologies consisted of
270 Conclusion

tape recorders, VCRs, and overhead projectors. Many of our young readers
will likely be unfamiliar with those outdated technologies! Distance learning
consisted of mailing (through snail mail) content, feedback, and exams. It was
impossible to imagine our present world thirty years ago; however, those who
clung to antiquated technologies and methods were left behind a long time
ago. What is clear is that all of us must be lifelong learners who seek out and
use new technologies that are able to meet the diverse needs of today’s students.

Future Directions
What Is the Future of Online Language Teaching?
By all accounts, it appears that online courses and programs will continue to grow
at both the K-12 and postsecondary levels across the globe. Currently, online
enrollments in the United States are outpacing traditional, brick-and-mortar
enrollments at the postsecondary level ( J. E. Seaman, Allen, & J. Seaman, 2018)
and they are expanding rapidly at the secondary level for credit recovery, AP
course delivery, dual enrollment, and/or for extending the school day (Picciano
& J. Seaman, 2010). A recent survey in K-12 online education showed that 21
states currently have virtual public schools with 1,015,760 total enrollments
as of early 2020 (Digital Learning Collaborative, 2020, pp. 18–19). This figure
does not include private virtual schools or schools that offer blended/hybrid
courses; therefore, the number of online enrollments in K-12 education is likely
to be even higher. Moreover, the most recently reported growth rate for online
enrollments among K-12 students is 6%, with world languages comprising 13%
of K-12 enrollments in state virtual schools ( Digital Learning Collaborative,
2019, p. 9). Among the largest of the state virtual schools in the United States
are the North Carolina Virtual Public School, with over 100,000 enrollments
during the 2018–2019 school year—making it the second largest state-led
virtual school—and the Florida Virtual School, which reported enrolling over
200,000 K-12 students during the 2018–2019 academic year (with 6,469 K-5
students, 14,160 students in grades 6-8, and 194,876 students in grades 9-12);
they also reported graduating 762 full-time online students in 2019, making it
the largest state-led virtual school in the United States (Florida Virtual School,
2019, p. 3).
With respect to higher education, more than 6 million postsecondary
students in the United States take at least one class online and the growth
rate for online enrollments continues to outpace traditional enrollments
 Conclusion  271

(Allen, J. Seaman, Poulin, & Straut, 2016; J. E. Seaman et al., 2018). In fact,
online enrollments in higher education have consistently grown over the past
fourteen years while enrollments in traditional, face-to-face courses have
declined (Allen et al., 2018). Furthermore, increases in online enrollments
do not appear to be affected by expansions or contractions in the economy,
even though on-campus enrollments are impacted significantly by these factors
(Palvia et al., 2018). As many colleges and universities across the United States
are facing budget cuts, declining enrollments, and increased pressure to reduce
the cost of tuition to make college more affordable, many institutions are
developing and offering online courses and programs to attract new students.
Graduate-level enrollments in online courses and programs are likely to con-
tinue to flourish as we move into the future. Most graduate students are busy,
working professionals with families and other life commitments that preclude
them from taking classes on a traditional campus. The authors predict that this
is a rich area for future grown in online education.
Online learning is also expanding rapidly worldwide, with Open
University being a leader among online institutions globally. It currently
serves more than 168,000 students in the United Kingdom and in 157 dif-
ferent countries (Open University, 2020). Open University is also one of
the oldest distance education institutions, as it celebrated its 50th anniver-
sary in 2019. In India, 1.6 million students are currently engaged in online
learning and this number is predicted to grow to 9.6 million by 2021 (Palvia
et al., 2018). Similarly, according to Li and Chen (2019), online enrollments
in higher education in China have been growing rapidly since the Internet
penetration rate surged to 54.3% in 2017; it was only at 1.7% in 2000 (p. 8).
At present, 6.45 million higher education students in China are enrolled
in online learning (Li & Chen, 2019, p. 9). In Australia and in parts of the
developing world, online learning is also growing, but at a slower pace due
to a lack of infrastructure and a lack of high bandwidth connectivity in
remote locations (Palvia et al., 2018). As technology improves and more
users have access to the Internet, increased growth in these countries and
regions is likely to occur. Mobile learning may also be a viable solution
for locations with poor infrastructure, especially as bandwidths of 6G and
beyond become available.
Given the statistics listed above, the outlook for online education in the
United States and worldwide is very promising. All indicators point to a
need for more language educators who are qualified to deliver instruction
online.
272 Conclusion

How Will Technology Impact Online Language Teaching

in the Future?
Future technologies will enable online language educators to create more
effective, efficient, and personalized learning experiences for their stu-
dents. Some of the technologies that will likely play a role in future online
course design, development, and delivery include mobile platforms, adaptive
learning software (based on data analytics), artificial intelligence (AI), vir-
tual reality (e.g., virtual worlds), augmented reality (e.g., Google Glass), and
gamification.
Most of today’s online learners want to access their course materials on
their mobile phones. While it is now possible to view most content without
distortions and pixilation on mobile devices, we have not yet reached the
point where online instructors can easily build courses using mobile platforms.
As technology improves, this is one area that is likely to make online course
development easier—and more portable—for online instructors in the future.
Adaptive learning software may likely make the biggest impact on stu-
dent learning outcomes in the future, as it will allow instructors to tailor
their materials and assessments to meet each student’s unique needs and pre-
ferred learning styles. Data analytic tools make this type of innovation possible
because each student’s progress can be tracked, with weaknesses pinpointed in
real time. Moreover, adaptive learning software can create tailor-made activ-
ities and programs of study to help students practice, learn, and master areas
where they are weak. When adaptive learning software is combined with AI,
students can receive one-on-one tutoring anyplace/anytime on a large scale.
Bernard (2017) reported that AI-based tutoring has already been used by the
U.S. Navy with their Education Dominance platform for instructional tech-
nology training; the platform functions like a human tutor because it care-
fully monitors and tracks each student’s progress and it tailors the student’s
assessments accordingly. Adaptive learning software and AI will enable online
language educators to better differentiate their instruction in the future, as
these technologies will be able to pinpoint learners’ exact proficiency levels
and proficiency gains in real time. Moreover, these technologies will be able
to generate aural and written input materials that are just beyond students’
current level for optimal language acquisition to take place (Krashen, 1985).
In addition, it is likely that adaptive learning software will replace traditional
textbooks in the future (Bernard, 2017).
Virtual meeting rooms and conversation platforms revolutionized online
language teaching in the last decade because instructors and students could
 Conclusion  273

easily meet and interact synchronously using a web cam, microphone,

and speakers. While real-time communication is facilitated through these
devices, they can be clunky and using them is less natural than face-to-face
interactions. Virtual reality and augmented reality will likely improve vir-
tual meeting spaces in the future to create more personalized and realistic
learning environments.
Future technologies may improve online language curricula through gami-
fication, which is defined as applying or introducing the elements of games into
non-game contexts such as language courses. According to Oxford Analytica
(2016), the primary appeal of gamifying the curriculum revolves around the
four freedoms that it creates for learners, which include the freedom to fail
(with little consequence), the freedom to experiment (leading to exploration
and discovery), the freedom to self-express (or to assume different identities and
perspectives), and the freedom from effort (in other words, intensive activity
can be followed by periods of inactivity to foster reflection and learning).
Some other benefits of gamification include goal setting, social engagement,
rapid feedback, collective responsibility, and incremental progression systems
(e.g., challenges and quests). Moreover, gamification incorporates visual sym-
bols of achievement (e.g., badges) to keep learners focused on the end goal
and not just on the immediate task before them. Entire courses could be built
around gamification and virtual and/or augmented reality, which could create
powerful online experiences for learners.

Concluding Remarks
The future of online language education appears to be very promising,
with enrollments in online courses and programs increasing worldwide. In
addition, new technologies will continue to improve instructors’ ability to
design, develop, and deliver quality online language courses. Data analytics
and adaptive learning software are especially promising, as data on learning
outcomes from prior courses as well as data that pinpoints each learner’s
strengths and weaknesses can better inform the instructional design pro-
cess, which will enable instructors to personalize and tailor their courses
for each student.
Some pitfalls to avoid in the future include resisting administrative deci-
sions to enroll large numbers of students in online language classes, where
a high level of student-student and student-teacher interaction are needed
for successful language learning to take place. In addition, online language
274 Conclusion

educators should abandon discrete-point tests that focus on form in favor

of performance-based assessments, such as IPAs, which are a better fit for
communicative online language learning environments because students can
create digital portfolios to showcase their interpretive, interpersonal, and pre-
sentational communication skills. Finally, those who transition from teaching
in traditional environments to teaching online should insist upon receiving
sufficient professional development in online language pedagogy and in the
instructional technologies that they will need to deliver their courses effec-
tively online. Keeping these pitfalls in mind will help ensure success for both
online language students and instructors alike.

References
Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., Poulin, R., & Straut, T. T. (2016). Online report card:
Tracking online education in the United States (Babson Survey Research Group
Report), pp. 1–57. Retrieved from http://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/
onlinereportcard.pdf
Bernard, Z. (2017, December 27). Here’s how technology is shaping the future
of education. Business Insider. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider
.com/how-technology-is-shaping-the-future-of-education-2017-12
Digital Learning Collaborative. (2019). Snapshot 2019: A review of K–12
online, blended, and digital learning. Retrieved from https://www.
digitallearningcollab.com/snapshot-pubs
Digital Learning Collaborative. (2020). Snapshot 2020: A review of K–12
online, blended, and digital learning. Retrieved from https://www.
digitallearningcollab.com/snapshot-pubs
Florida Virtual School. (2019). Florida virtual school district enrollment summary:
2018–19. Retrieved from https://www.flvs.net/docs/default-source/
district/flvs-district-enrollment-summary.pdf?sfvrsn=5c9a7a2a_12
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York, NY:
Longman.
Li, W., & Chen, N. (2019). China. In O. Zawacki-Richterm & A. Qayyum
(Eds.), Open and distance education in Asia, Africa and the Middle East (Springer
Briefs in Education, pp. 7–22). Singapore: Springer.
Open University. (2020). Facts and figures. Retrieved from http://www.open
.ac.uk/about/main/strategy-and-policies/facts-and-figures
Oxford Analytica. (2016). Gamification and the future of education. Retrieved from
https://www.worldgovernmentsummit.org/api/publications/document?id=
2b0d6ac4-e97c-6578-b2f8-ff0000a7ddb6
 Conclusion  275

Palvia, S., Aeron, P., Gupta, P., Mahapatra, D., Parida, R., Rosner, R., & Sindi, S.
(2018). Online education:Worldwide status, challenges, trends, and implica-
tions. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 21(4), 233–241.
doi:10.1080/1097198X.2018.1542262
Picciano, A. G., & Seaman, J. (2010). Class connections: High school reform and the
role of online learning (Babson Survey Research Group Report), pp. 1–28.
Retrieved from https://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/class-­
connections.pdf
Seaman, J. E., Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade increase: Tracking distance
education in the United States (Babson Survey Research Group Report), 1–45.
Retrieved from http://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/gradeincrease.pdf
Index
accessibility 25, 27, 58–9, 124, 151; for analytics 62, 78, 121, 272, 273
dyslexia 78–9, 105; for visual, hearing, Analyze-Design-Develop-Implement-
mobility impairment 24, 122, 149, 150; Evaluation design model; see ADDIE
see also universal design for learning Anderson, T. 47, 94, 239
ACTFL as association 2, 28, 33, 37, 38, 121, 140, Anxiety; see language learning anxiety
141, 146, 147, 152–56, 167, 186–87, 203–4, Arabic: as language 17, 153, 189, 198, 199–200,
208, 218, 232, 252, 257; see also ACTFL 201, 202, 214, 237; see also less commonly
Distance Learning SIG; Can-Do; intercul- taught languages
tural reflection tool; Mentoring Program Archer, W. 47, 239
for Online Language Teachers; performance; artificial intelligence (AI) 5, 121, 272
standards assessment(s) 4, 5, 6, 12, 26, 28, 32, 38–40, 41,
ACTFL Distance Learning Special Interest 43, 45, 48, 52–61, 62–4, 76–7, 85, 89, 90, 91,
Group (DL SIG) 2, 185, 203, 204; see also 93–4, 110, 111, 114, 115, 116–19, 124, 153,
mentoring program 154, 155, 156, 157, 159, 172–73, 186, 188,
activity 3, 6, 7, 12, 29, 33, 38, 40, 44, 47, 49–50, 192, 193, 194, 197, 223, 224, 228, 230,
54, 55, 62, 76, 77, 78, 80, 82, 84, 85, 87, 89, 233–34, 240, 244, 247–56, 257, 258, 269, 272,
90, 92–110 113–15, 118, 119, 123, 134–36, 274; formative 12, 43, 63, 14, 116, 118, 153,
138, 143, 155–59, 161–71, 185, 188, 189, 172, 247; summative 12, 54, 55, 63, 65; 114,
194–96, 199–200, 207, 227, 229 233–34, 116, 118, 153, 172, 244, 246, 247, 248, 251;
244, 245, 253, 255–56, 269, 273; open-ended see also CEFR; integrated performance assess-
143, 159, 161 ment; performance-based assessments; WIDA
Adair-Hauck, B. 142, 177, 248, 250, 252–55, 258 assignment(s) 12, 26, 32, 40, 41, 45, 59, 76,
Adams, M. J. 253–54 80, 91–2, 94, 98, 116, 124, 135, 166, 216,
adaptive learning 272–73 223–24, 228, 230, 231, 234, 238, 240
ADDIE 4–6, 10–14, 23, 31–2, 60, 62–3, 65, 75, asynchronous delivery 17, 22, 27, 38, 43–4, 49,
118, 123 50, 85, 87, 99, 100, 102, 104, 107–108, 110,
adult education/learners 10, 28, 52, 114 146, 114, 116, 151, 161, 165, 174, 175, 184, 202,
173, 254 203, 227, 229–30
affordance(s) 3, 34, 59, 121 authentic material(s) 42, 46, 106, 114, 115, 116,
Allen, I. E. 133, 209, 213, 214, 270, 271, 137–38, 141, 142, 143, 162–64, 167–69, 170,
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign 176, 177, 193, 229, 231, 250, 252, 253, 254,
Languages; see ACTFL 255, 256

276
 Index  277

autonomy 4, 9, 26, 27, 40, 76, 78, 101, 121, classroom; see hybrid classroom/learning
123, 124 (includes blended); face-to-face
avatar 48, 96, 153, 243 (brick-and-mortar, traditional); online
classroom/course
Basic Online Language Design and Delivery class size 6, 16, 19, 213, 215–18, 256–60,
Collaboratory; see BOLDD 262–66, 269; CLT; see communicative
Bates, A. 21, 40, 66, 89, 20, 120, 125 language teaching
behaviorism 12, 158; see also grammar commercial provider 14, 17, 48, 59, 106,
best practices 11, 46, 50, 60, 63, 67, 75, 94, 116, 114–115, 122, 249
196, 202, 204, 207, 222, 223, 226, 227, 231, Common European Framework of Reference;
238, 239, 256, 257, 259; see also effectiveness see CEFR
Blackboard; see learning management system Communication; see mode of communication
blended learning; see hybrid learning/classroom Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) 5,
blog 82, 105, 107, 110, 121, 170, 229, 240; 7, 28, 29, 40, 44, 116, 140–44, 172, 175, 176,
microblog 240, 243, 263 177, 180, 182, 288
Bloom’s Taxonomy 33, 42, 52, 108, 109 community college; see postsecondary education
Boettcher, J. 28, 49, 226, 227, 228 230–40, 246, Community of Inquiry (COI) 28, 47, 65, 69,
257, 259; see also Conrad, R. M. 94, 95, 101, 239, 240, 242, 247, 259
BOLDD 2, 10, 20, 25, 62, 185, 186, 202, 203; comprehensible input 145, 146, 148, 150, 153,
survey 21, 29, 31 167, 219, 224
Bolliger, D. U. 244, 245, 246, 259; see also Inan, Computer-Assisted Language Instruction
F. A.; Online Student Connectedness Survey Consortium (CALICO) 2, 62, 203–6
(OSCS) Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL)
Byram, M. 131, 156, 232 2, 10, 30
Computer Mediated Communication
Canale, M. 134, 135, 137, 177 (CMC) 205
Can-Do: descriptors (WIDA) 33, 54, 157, 173, connectivism 12, 14
232, 233; statements (NCSSFL-ACTFL) Conrad, R. M. 28, 49, 226, 227, 228 230–40,
33, 38, 40, 43, 46, 54, 55, 58, 65, 93, 246, 257, 259; see also Boettcher, J.
94, 116, 155–57, 158, 172–173, constructionism 12, 14
232, 233 constructivism 12, 14, 82
Canvas; see learning management system content-based: instruction (CBI) 193–94, 209;
caption/captioning 59, 112, 143, 149, 150, 162 language instruction 209; language teaching
CEFR 28, 33, 38, 53, 115, 152, 154, 181, 237; with technology (CoBaLTT) 192–93
see also assessment; descriptors; standards content frame; see map
cell phones; see mobile devices; smartphone conversation: partners 166, 169, 241; platform(s)
Center for Advanced Research on Language 166, 220, 221, 248; exchange; see virtual
Acquisition (CARLA) 38, 39, 43, 55, 56, exchange
133, 169, 192–97, 207, 209, 255; summer core practices 6, 63, 75, 134, 141–43, 159, 177
institutes 192, 196, 207, 209; technology corrective feedback 143, 171, 174
integration modules 193–96; transitioning Council of Europe (COE) 28, 33, 77, 140,
to teaching languages online (TTLO) 152, 237
course 196 curation 46, 47, 121, 170, 177
Center for Applied Second Language Studies Curtis, W. 215, 216, 257
(CASLS) 38, 40, 42, 43, 48, 92, 93, 94, 94, customized learning 232
208, 256
Center for Open Educational Resources in D2L Brightspace; see learning management
Language Learning (COERLL) 145, 197, system
207; open educational resources (OER) 48, data analytics; see analytics
106, 115, 145, 197–99, 201; resources for Davin, K. 253, 254
language pedagogy 145, 197, 198, 199–200 design: backward 4, 12, 40–3, 52, 65, 89, 92, 116,
Chinese: as language 17, 79, 153, 163, 188, 189, 143, 144, 202, 233, 251, 256; instructional 9,
198, 201, 202, 214, 237; as market 34, 84; 10, 11, 13, 21, 28, 50, 52, 57, 144, 186, 187,
see also less commonly taught language 226, 238, 268, 273
278 Index

development: learner 37, 75–7, 78, 90, 118, 121, feedback 13, 19, 48, 49, 50, 57, 63, 64, 77, 78,
123, 124; professional 5, 7, 11, 19, 20, 24, 31, 90, 94, 95, 98, 99, 100, 103, 107, 114, 116,
32, 64, 134, 143, 184–209, 215, 225, 268–69, 117, 118, 119, 141, 143, 171–75, 222, 227,
274; see also autonomy 230, 240, 245, 249, 252, 253, 259, 270,
differentiation 27, 29, 55, 60 273; see also corrective feedback; informal
digital portfolios; see e-portfolios; LinguaFolio feedback
digital storytelling 105, 163, 194 flipped classroom/instruction/learning 2, 3, 5,
discussion board/posts 24, 82, 161, 221, 227, 6, 9, 12, 13, 17, 19, 30, 40, 44, 59, 65, 87, 88,
228, 230, 246; help discussion boards 99, 114, 123, 131, 134, 135, 143, 144, 148,
227, 246 149, 152, 160, 166, 167, 171, 172, 174, 175,
distance learning 2, 47, 57, 122, 220 176, 180, 191, 208, 223, 234, 250, 254, 256,
Dodge, B. 195 268, 269
Don, M. R. 223, 225–26, 229, 259 foreign language anxiety: in the classroom 6,
Donato, R. 52, 75, 134, 141, 142, 143, 159,177, 212, 213, 217, 219–22, 256, 257; as Foreign
253; see also Adair-Hauck, B.; Glisan, E. Language Anxiety Classroom Scale (FLCAS)
219–20
Edmodo; see learning management system Foreign Service Institute (FSI) 152, 237, 238
EDUCAUSE 115, 206 Fornara, F. 240, 241, 242
effectiveness: in assessment 57, 118, 233, 247, French: as language 16, 17, 23, 46, 47, 48, 57, 83,
248, 254–256; in design 11, 13, 27, 57, 58, 114, 119, 122, 144, 145, 153, 163, 189, 198,
62, 63, 64, 81, 82, 86, 111, 122, 256, 272; in 199, 214, 220, 237, 241, 242
online language course 23, 76, 90, 105, 113, function(s): as academic 157, 173; as interper-
132, 143, 175, 165, 194, 198, 214, 216–17, sonal 103, 173; of tool(s) 35, 103, 113, 234;
217–19, 223, 225, 238, 239, 242, 269; in as notional/functional 40, 52, 134, 136, 140,
practices/behaviors 10, 12, 24, 32, 75, 77, 143, 144, 145, 172, 233, 240, 250, 265
78, 85, 119, 124, 158, 186, 200, 218, 231; as
teachers 6, 44, 80, 117, 133, 134, 141, 142, games/gaming/gamification 14, 44, 48, 111,
160, 201, 215, 234 115, 116, 119, 122, 126, 129, 205, 243,
Egbert, J. 135, 148 272, 273
elementary education; see K-12 education Garrison, D. R. 47, 50, 51, 52, 94, 239, 240,
Ellis, R. 174, 177 257, 259
e-mail 47, 49, 50, 82, 83, 86, 88, 89, 100, 164, German: as language 17, 23, 29, 114, 153, 163,
174, 178, 224, 227, 228 189, 198, 199, 214, 226, 237
engagement 16, 22, 25, 26, 37, 46, 47, 49, 52, 62, Getting Started/Start Here module/tab 44, 45,
78, 86, 101, 230, 231; community 33, 104, 46, 47, 65, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 224, 234
185, 269, 273; multiple means of 121, 124, Glisan, E. W. 42, 52, 75, 134, 141, 142, 143, 154,
English: as a second language (ESL) 28, 33, 38, 159, 176, 177, 248, 250, 252, 253, 257, 258
43, 152, 154, 155, 157, 163, 173, 224, 226 global competence; see intercultural communi-
e-portfolio(s) 116, 191, 249, 274; see also cative competence (ICC)
LinguaFolio Godwin-Jones, R. 120, 121, 122, 177
European Association of Computer-Assisted Goertler, S. 218, 222
Language Learning (EUROCALL) 205 Google, 36, 84; Classroom 23; Docs 99, 106,
evaluation 4, 6, 10–14, 16, 20, 21, 31, 61–4, 77, 107–8, 110, 121, 174; Drawing 105; Drive
78, 86, 116, 118, 123, 124, 173, 195, 213, 219, 36, 200; Forms 78, 117, 119, 230; Glass 122,
230, 244, 246 272; Hangouts/Meet 98, 103, 113; Online
expression: multiple means of 54, 60, 124 Education Platform 35; Slides 111, 126, 149;
see also learning management system
face-to-face (brick-and-mortar/traditional): grammar 99, 115, 135, 136, 139, 140, 141, 142,
activities/instruction 3, 12, 13, 16, 21, 25, 27, 144, 146, 160, 230, 248, 249; as drills 158,
30, 40, 44, 59, 80, 81, 85, 91, 101, 215, 216, 159; checkers/correctors 118, 119; internal
220, 222, 224, 225, 244, 257; classroom 3, 15, 146, 219; see also Krashen, S.
17, 19, 33, 50, 90, 123, 133, 134, 199, 213,
214, 220, 225, 271; communication 49, 87, high school education; see K-12 education
102, 273; education 63, 270 homework; see assignments
 Index  279

Horwitz, E. K. 219 LangMedia 137, 138, 139, 169, 178

Hromalik, C. 12, 40, 62 language: as L1/home language/native 3, 24,
hybrid classroom/learning 2, 3, 13, 14, 15, 17, 25, 37, 51, 61, 86, 103, 104, 106, 136, 146,
19, 25, 30, 33, 66, 114, 123, 133, 260, 270 147, 148, 162; as L2/second language/target
Hymes, D. 134, 135 language 3, 24, 29, 37, 51, 58, 61, 79, 80, 86,
87, 103, 104, 106, 115, 119, 129, 135, 136,
Inan, F. A. 244, 245, 246, 259; see also Bolliger, 139, 140, 146, 147, 148, 159, 160, 161, 162,
D. U.; Online Student Connectedness 166, 168
Survey (OSCS) language learning anxiety; see foreign language
inclusivity 58, 60, 61, 65, 88, 104 anxiety
inductive teaching/technique 142, 159, 160, 182 Language Resource Center (LRC) 2, 6, 38, 121,
informal feedback 227, 230 197, 207, 208; see also Center for Advanced
input: processing 160; flooding 160; as Research on Language Acquisition
hypothesis; see Krashen, S. (CARLA); Center for Applied Second
integrated performance assessment (IPA) 39, 68, Language Studies (CASLS); Center for
116, 252–55, 257 Open Educational Resources in Language
interaction 4, 7, 23, 26, 33, 37, 38, 40, 41, 45, Learning (COERLL); National Foreign
49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 58, 64, 76, 77, 79, 80, Language Resource Center (NFLRC)
85, 87, 91, 92, 93, 99, 104, 107, 107, 109, Latin: as language 169, 199
110, 111, 113, 114, 123, 124, 143, 147, 152, learner connectedness 243–46, 256; see also
156, 157, 166, 171, 173, 186, 218, 230, 234, interaction, learner-learner
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 246, 257, 264, 265; Learner Support Agreements (LSA) 98
hypothesis 147; learner-content 98, 105; learner(s)/student(s): advanced 29, 48, 91, 103,
learner-learner/student-student 101, 102, 120, 122, 139, 145, 148, 153, 168, 200, 220,
103, 167, 217, 223, 224, 245, 248, 273; 230, 236, 238, 257; adult 10, 51, 114, 146,
learner-teacher/instructor 95, 98, 100, 101, 173, 254; K-12 22, 157, 168, 201, 226, 253,
161, 166, 186, 200, 217, 223, 224, 225, 226, 254, 270; intermediate 37, 46, 86, 87, 120,
248, 273; see also Long, M. H. 122, 145, 148, 153, 154, 168, 171, 242, 245,
interactive media 85, 100 257; military 10, 16, 17, 22, 57; novice 26, 37,
intercultural communicative competence (ICC) 52, 86, 145, 148, 153, 168, 171, 173, 200, 227,
131, 133, 156, 157, 158, 168, 179, 232 229, 236, 238, 250, 254, 255, 257; postsec-
intercultural reflection tool (NCSSFL-ACTFL) ondary 15, 47, 253, 254, 270
157 learning, self-directed/self-regulated (SRL); see
International Association for Language Learning autonomy
Technology (IALLT) 2, 206, 209 learning analytics; see analytics
interpersonal mode of communication; see learning management system (LMS) 12, 20, 23,
mode of communication 24, 28, 33, 24, 25, 45, 48, 49, 50, 60, 65, 75,
interpretive mode of communication; see mode 78, 84, 86, 89, 92, 99, 100, 102, 103, 107, 110,
of communication 111, 112, 114, 115, 117, 119, 121, 149, 150,
Ishihara, N. 136, 178 164, 170, 184, 228; Blackboard 23–4, 33–4,
58, 60, 81, 82, 83, 84, 89, 98, 102, 107, 113,
Johnshoy, M. 10, 16, 20, 71, 133, 202, 209, 214 114, 148, 149, 229; Canvas 23, 24, 33, 34,
60, 61, 84, 89, 92, 114; D2L Brightspace 23,
K-12 education 1, 10, 17, 22, 35, 38, 133, 153, 33, 34, 45, 60, 61, 81, 84, 89, 114, 148, 235;
154, 168, 197, 201, 204, 205, 212, 217, 226, Edmodo 23, 34, 35, 92, 108, 117; Google 23,
232, 266, 270 33, 35; Moodle 23, 24, 33, 34, 35, 60, 114;
King, A. 135 Sakai 23, 34, 60, 107
Kissau, S. 253, 254 Lee, J. F. 160, 177, 243
Koda, K. 248, 252, 257 less commonly taught languages (LCTL)
Krashen, S. 145, 146, 219, 224, 272 17, 29, 153, 163, 188, 189, 193, 198, 202,
214, 237
L2 Listening/Reading: background knowledge LinguaFolio 38–40, 42, 46, 55, 57, 58, 68, 74, 77,
162, 230; bottom-up processing 162; 90, 92, 93, 106, 108, 116, 119, 249, 256
top-down processing 162 Liskin-Gasparro, J. E. 249
280 Index

listening: as skill 27, 38, 46, 55, 59, 60, 102, 105, Murphy-Judy, K. 10, 11, 16, 20, 62, 120, 177,
106–7, 113, 117, 132, 135, 137, 138, 140, 202, 209, 214
146, 153, 155, 161, 162, 163, 173, 174, 217,
228, 224, 229, 251, 252, 254, 255, 256; see National Council of State Authorization of
also mode of communication Reciprocity Agreements (NC-SARA) 22, 71
literacy 80, 104, 155, 188; computer/digital 7, National Council of State Supervisors for
9, 222 Languages (NCSSFL) 33, 93, 155, 232;
Lomicka, L. 102, 240 see also Can-Do Statements; intercultural
Long, M. H. 146, 147, 174, 224, 229 reflection tool
Lord, G. 102, 240, 242 National Foreign Language Resource Center
(NFLRC) 110, 187–92, 207, 210n; journals
map/mapping: of content 45, 94, 151, 234; as 189; mentoring program 185, 203–4, 208;
content frame 32, 33, 45 online language pedagogy (OLP) 186–87,
massive open online course (MOOC) 18, 19, 190; project-based language learning (PBLL)
22, 23, 34, 71, 72, 191, 217 105, 190–92, 192; Pebbles 191; see also
materials; see authentic material(s); open educa- Rodríguez, J. C.
tional resource; publisher material; textbook negotiation of meaning 95, 143, 147, 161, 166
meaningful cultural context 2, 65, 143, 164, 169, notion(s): as notional/functional 40, 134, 140,
171, 233, 255, 269 143, 144, 145, 233
mentoring 5, 31, 203, 204
Mentoring Program for Online Language online badge(s)/badging 18, 186, 190, 200, 273
Teachers (ACTFL DL SIG/NFLRC) online classroom/course (fully online) 16, 20,
185–87, 208 21, 24, 27, 30, 31, 32, 40, 44, 47, 48, 49, 50,
MERLOT (Multimedia Education Resource 52, 54, 57, 59, 62, 65, 70, 72, 78, 80, 85, 88,
for Learning and Online Teaching) 115, 144, 80, 91, 94, 95, 96, 98, 105, 106, 133, 137, 184,
145, 169, 207, 208 185, 214, 216, 218, 220, 221, 231, 236, 238,
military: as institutional provider 10; see also 242, 244, 245, 246, 257, 258
learners online class size 6, 5, 216, 217, 265; and
mobile: devices 25, 26, 35, 37, 60, 84, 232, 272; course caps 258; optimal 213, 217, 218;
learning 15, 25, 26, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 46, 84, recommended 217
271, 272 online language pedagogy: as concept 2, 5, 30,
mode of communication 33, 38, 42, 44, 46, 52, 132, 134, 188, 215, 216, 257, 274; OLP as
93, 102, 105, 122, 158, 161, 162, 173, 217, project 186, 189, 190
224, 225, 229, 232, 248, 249, 252, 254, 255, Online Learning Consortium (OLC) 2, 206,
256; interpersonal 33, 37, 42, 44, 46, 53, 55, 207, 208
56, 57, 95, 102, 103, 105, 113, 117, 119, 157, Online Student Connectedness Survey (OSCS)
161, 166, 173, 224, 229, 230, 248, 274; inter- 244–47, 257, 259
pretive 33, 37, 38, 46, 52, 95, 102, 104, 105, open educational resource (OER) 22, 115, 144,
113, 118, 119, 161, 162, 163, 173, 224, 248, 145, 198, 199, 200, 201, 208
252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 269, 274; presenta- Open University 62, 76, 271
tional 37, 39, 42, 46, 53, 57, 101, 102, 105, orientation: learner 4, 27, 33, 44, 59, 61, 79,
113, 119, 155, 161, 164, 166, 173, 194, 224, 85–8, 98, 100, 102, 104, 114, 147, 224
229, 250, 255, 269 output hypothesis 147; see also Swain, M.
module(s) 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 19, 20, 30,
32, 37, 40, 42, 44, 45, 46, 52, 55, 60, 65, PACE model 93, 141, 142, 177; see also Donato,
80, 83–94, 103, 105, 107, 112, 115, 116, R.; Glisan, E.
117, 119, 122, 123, 124, 151, 152, 186, 189, pedagogy 21, 63, 112, 132, 133, 134, 175,
190, 191, 194, 199, 200, 203, 222, 224, 232, 185, 193, 199, 200, 209, 225; see also online
233, 234, 235; self-paced 16, 21, 189, 199, language pedagogy
200, 206 peer: editing/proofing 107; partners 31, 113,
MOOC; see massive open online course 169, 170, 229, 241; support or groups 51,
Moodle; see learning management system 89, 98, 222, 228, 229, 245; work 51, 98,
motivation 14, 15, 26, 27, 64, 77, 156, 266 135, 147, 170, 185, 190, 195, 227, 229,
multimedia 28, 46, 49, 110, 114, 232 230, 240
 Index  281

performance: definitions (WIDA) 54, 74, 173, Sakai; see learning management system
175, 251; descriptors (ACTFL) 54, 67, 155, Sandrock, P. 248, 252, 257, 258
172, 173, 175, 250, 251; indicators 33, 39, satisfaction: learner 6, 63, 77, 212, 213–16, 256;
155, 156, 157 teacher 6, 212, 256
performance-based assessments 55, 116, 249, scaffolding 4, 7, 29, 37, 40, 41, 49, 50, 52,
252, 256, 257, 274 54, 85, 87, 93, 99, 101, 103, 104, 106,
personalized learning; see customized learning 112, 113, 114, 115, 117, 119, 124, 142,
Pichette, F. 222, 257 168, 169
podcast 91, 106, 199, 229 Seaman, J. 133, 209, 213, 214, 270, 271
Poulin, R. 133, 213, 271, Seaman, J. E. 133, 209, 214, 270, 271
postsecondary education 10, 15, 22, 26, 47, 59, secondary education; see K-12 education
81, 84, 136, 144, 163, 199, 214, 243, 254, second language acquisition (SLA) 42, 106, 116,
263, 270 121, 192, 205, 229
pragmatics 136, 163, 188, 19; pragmatic self-directedness; see autonomy
competence 163; pragmatics-focused Shea, P. 47, 50, 84, 86, 89, 100, 240, 257
instruction 134, 137, 225 Shrum, J. L. 42, 177, 250
presence(s) 47, 52, 94, 126, 226, 239–40, 243: smartphone 25, 35, 37, 84, 113
cognitive 51–2, 246; social 6, 50–2, 91, 98, Southern Regional Education Board
185, 239–43, 246, 247, 256, 257; teaching (SREB) 22
47–52, 96, 239 Spanish: as language 16, 17, 23, 34, 45, 79, 114,
presentational mode of communication; see 119, 121, 136, 137, 138, 149, 153, 160, 163,
mode of communication 165, 178n, 189, 198, 199, 200, 214, 215, 216,
processing instruction (PI) 160; see also input 220, 221, 223, 226, 234, 235, 236, 237, 241,
processing 245, 259
proficiency: benchmarks 39, 65, 153, 155, 156; speaking: as skill 27, 33, 38, 46, 55, 56, 59, 102,
guidelines 38, 53, 134, 152–56, 158, 172, 200; 103, 105, 106, 117, 131, 132, 135, 140, 141,
levels 5, 26, 29, 45, 46, 54, 87, 92, 98, 106, 146, 153, 155, 157, 161, 163, 164, 165, 166,
114, 143, 145, 146, 150, 155, 169, 173, 234, 173, 194, 195, 220, 221, 222, 223, 229, 236,
255, 269; of teachers 153–54; testing 29, 55, 251, 254, 255, 264, 265; see also mode of
152, 153, 154 communication
project-based language learning (PBLL) 28, standards: ACTFL (World-Readiness) 28, 38,
177, 188, 189, 190–92, 192, 209; as NFLRC 39, 46, 51, 52, 51, 53, 54, 93, 124, 152, 153,
project 189–90; see also task-based teaching/ 154, 158, 167, 169, 195, 218, 250, 251, 252;
learning CEFR 28, 38, 53, 152, 154; professional 12,
publisher materials 24, 26, 36, 37, 49, 78, 86, 28, 32, 53, 54, 75, 124, 134, 143, 150, 151,
92, 102, 114, 115, 118, 119, 120, 160, 199, 152, 158, 234, 252, 269; WIDA (English
231, 249 Language Development) 28, 38, 53, 54, 124,
152, 154, 173, 251
Quality Matters (QM) 44, 63, 85, 124 STARTALK 185, 201, 202
Quinlan, J. 109 Start Here; see Getting Started
story-based approach 142, 160, 250; see also
reading: as skill 33, 38, 46, 49, 55, 60, 78, 79, 80, Adair-Hauck, B.; Donato, R.
91, 95, 101, 102, 104, 105, 113, 117, 121, 131, Straut, T. T. 133, 213, 271
132, 140, 153, 155, 161, 162, 167, 173, 189, Suvorov, R. 62
223, 224, 229, 251, 252, 254, 255, 256; social Swain, M. 134, 135, 137, 146, 147, 177, 224
106, 107; see also mode of communication Swender, E.154, 248, 252, 257
representation, multiple means of 55, 60, 105, synchronous delivery 43, 44, 64, 110, 114, 151,
106, 120, 124, 234, 235 166, 184, 185, 186, 224
Richards, J. C. 140, 142, 143, 159, 177
Rodríguez, J. C. 192, 210 task-based teaching/learning 14, 116, 141, 177,
rubrics 54, 55, 80, 90, 171, 172, 173, 175, 231, 178, 188; see also project-based (language)
249, 250, 251, 252, 254; customizable 173 learning
Russell,V. 148, 160, 165, 215, 216, 220, 221, te(a)chnologies 2, 63, 65, 76, 108, 110, 115,
245, 246, 257 121, 123, 124
282 Index

telecollaboration; see virtual exchange vocabulary as content 43, 44, 51, 99, 103, 106, 115,
teletandem; see virtual exchange 126, 135, 137, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 168, 172,
testing: alpha 12, 61, 79, 223, 224; beta 12, 61, 173, 230, 248, 249, 250, 251, 253, 255
123, 223, 224 voice over internet protocol; see VoIP
textbooks 114, 136, 139, 144, 156, 159, 176, VoIP 36, 104
180, 199, 231, 232, 272; see also publisher
materials washback effect 248, 255, 256, 257
Today’s Front Pages 168, 169 Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)
Troyan, F. J. 252, 253, 258 25, 59, 124
tutoring: as learning service 49, 110, 228; as webinar 5, 6, 98, 105, 113, 187, 189, 204, 206, 269
support service 27, 222, 272 webquest 194, 195
Western Interstate Commission for Higher
understanding by design (UbD) 41, 66 Education (WICHE) 22
universal design for learning (UDL) 24, 27, whiteboard 104, 105, 174
54, 56, 60, 68, 75, 76, 105, 121, 124 WIDA 28, 33, 38, 53, 54, 124, 152, 154, 155,
university; see postsecondary education 157, 173, 175, 232, 233, 251; see also Can-Do
usability 24, 49, 58, 60, 65, 78, 83, 110, 123 Wiggins, G. 10, 41, 66, 249
wiki 82, 107, 110, 121, 170, 194, 245
VanPatten, B. 159–60, 177, 248 , 257 wireframe 22, 234
video 2, 4, 7, 26, 36, 37, 44, 46, 48–50, 52, 55, World-Class Instructional Design and
57, 59, 76, 80, 82, 85, 86, 88, 91, 95, 95, 96, Assessment Consortium, see WIDA
102, 105, 106, 110–19, 127, 135, 137, 138, writing: as skill 27, 33, 38, 46, 57, 59, 61, 79,
139, 144, 148–51, 162–66, 169, 176, 178, 101, 102, 107, 118, 119, 128, 131, 132, 153,
199, 200, 220, 221, 225, 229, 231, 232, 236, 155, 160, 161, 166, 173, 182, 217, 220, 223,
240, 241, 249, 252, 253 250, 251, 254, 256; social 101, 102; see also
virtual exchange/telecollaboration/teletandem/ mode of communication
t 31, 49, 103, 108, 110, 128, 177, 194, 195, 209
virtual worlds 122, 205, 240, 242, 243, 265, 272 Zimmerman, T. D. 104, 244, 245